Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
I suspect that all the discussion of tax changes misses the key point. Forget the rich, for a moment.
What matters to people on below average or average incomes is how much disposable income they have once all their essential bills are paid, regardless of the precise amount of tax/NI they pay. Given the freezing of tax thresholds, the huge rise in energy bills (despite the cap), the fact that most pay rises are below inflation, and all the price rises to 'essential' goods, the vast majority of people are going to be worse off - i.e. have less disposable income. Cutting the basic rate to 19% will only have a marginal impact on that fact.
To help with that calculation, Christmas is coming so families in particular will be confronted with how much they can or cannot afford compared with last year.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
As a general view on life, I think nothing is ever as bad or as good as it seems.
Certainly this budget has been received very badly (even by those like me who come away about £2000 pa better off in the short term) but the fiscal drag from inflation will actually mean that we remain a high tax country, so the deficit will not be as bad as projected. I don't expect any detectable effect on growth as nothing has been done to address the reasons for our poor growth in recent decades.
But if the fiscal drag is real where is the giveaway overall?
Ultimately the government has come out with some radical fiscal changes and it has not been publicly costed by the OBR or Treasury. How else can the markets react?
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Today are leading with a think tank opinion, everyone but very rich WORSE OFF after a £45B giveaway budget.
Really?
Journalism at its best. Every one who pays income tax or NI, is better off as a result of the measures announced yesterday.
Not really, this budget will add hundreds of pounds per month onto mortgage costs and extend our period of high inflation by an extra 6 months. The small saving on NI will be wiped out by these twin costs. Only people earning £250k or more will actually be better off IMO.
Not 100% accurate.
Come April the same choice for most people will be to take a contract rather than a permanent job and pay themselves using a limited company.
For people doing that earn £50,000 it would reduce NI costs to zero and after tax give you a take home pay of £40,080 after all tax was deducted.
An interesting point. I have been working with the same group of Romanian companies for 2 years, developing and trying to implement UK business plans for their expansion. After a couple of false starts (driven by changes at their end, not mine!) we are finally about to get on with it with scale in the UK.
Previously I had been clear that once we start trading properly and hiring people, my contractor status would become untenable and I would need to be employed by the new UK business to run it. Is that still true?
Let me post a flow diagram I did for LinkedIn yesterday. the response so far has been cynical it accurate and that includes people who I know work in Longbenton
Although you will have a slight different issue as an office holder but even then I suspect you could separate things out.
In many ways the biggest changes yesterday were completely hidden - there is this one on tax and a different one of Thursday where all EU based employment law was quietly dropped from January 1st 2024 unless explicitly relegislated.
Should that be "contract" in the top box? In several decades of IT work, I've seen one genuine contractor, brought in repeatedly but for specific projects, and rather more disguised employees, and quite a few with 12 to 18-months contracts where maybe both sides were taking the piss. Btw, some companies use almost an internal contractor model, where employees are assigned to teams or projects for short periods and then moved back to the "bench" which I guess is some sort of American sports metaphor.
Contracting has been interesting, but I will be quite content taking a job once I have project-managed the business plan and set-up of a viable UK business capable of employing me...
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
If you can find a savings product with a better than 2.5% return, yes. If not, carry on overpaying if it is without penalty etc
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
How the other 5% live. For many the special fiscal operation is going to disincentivise them from eating and switching the heating on.
I thought this was quite apposite. They’re certainly a right bunch of cultists.
I've said something similar myself. I applaud that LizT and Kwasi eschew austerity and want to grow the economy. What I cannot see is by what means they will achieve this laudable aim. Rishi favoured using the tax system to incentivise research and investment. Kwasi seems to be chucking the cards in the air and hoping an ace will land face up. We must hope he is right.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Sounds like you should be delighted with this budget. Labour should cruise to victory next time.
I don't see with the levels of borrowing there is any scope for infrastructure spending, services spending or even additional defence spending without tax rises.
Growth is, as Truss exclaims the answer, but there is no money or affordable borrowing left to stimulate growth. So how do we achieve it?
If we remained in the EU we could run the economy down as we are doing and expect some social fund grants at the end of the rainbow, but we don't even have that backstop now.
Today are leading with a think tank opinion, everyone but very rich WORSE OFF after a £45B giveaway budget.
Really?
Journalism at its best. Every one who pays income tax or NI, is better off as a result of the measures announced yesterday.
Not really, this budget will add hundreds of pounds per month onto mortgage costs and extend our period of high inflation by an extra 6 months. The small saving on NI will be wiped out by these twin costs. Only people earning £250k or more will actually be better off IMO.
The budget didn’t mention mortgage costs (I assume you mean changes in interest rates, set by the independent BoE), and inflation has a whole number of causes.
As I said, terrible journalism, most people will be better off *as a result of the changes in taxation announced yesterday* by the Chancellor.
But the drop in sterling is because of the tax changes. Even if interest rates don't go up the drop in sterling adds ~4% onto commodity prices which sends consumer prices up by 2-3%, that alone wipes out any tax cuts for all but the top 10% of earners. Add in interest rates going up and now you're in a situation where 99% of people are worse off.
As one of my colleagues pointed out yesterday, it's not necessarily the government borrowing an additional £45bn that has spooked markets, it is that the City and Wall Street don't understand why the money has been spent on measures that have low or negative economic multipliers. Giving already rich people a big tax cut won't yield anywhere near the additional growth we need to balance this off. As evidenced in the NEISR forecast yesterday.
As you know I'm generally more positive on the UK than most on here and was willing to be convinced by the need to stimulate growth with targeted tax cuts. Well now that we've got the tax cuts I don't see how they stimulate growth in the long term.
I share your perplexity. A lot of that £45bn is going to be saved with zero multplier effects. I think the intention must be to attract new high earners to the City or elsewhere by reducing their personal taxation and their corporate taxation if they base their business here as well as removing the rather silly restrictions on bonuses. It's possible that will happen to a small extent but not on a scale that will make a difference.
The infrastructure and investment zones are potentially interesting. If this succeeds in attracting new businesses to depressed areas it could do a lot for levelling up and the red wall seats. The benefits include no rates and no stamp duty along with pretty much no planning controls. But the devil may be in the detail of the last one which seems to need to be agreed with local authorities.
Junking the bonus cap would have been enough to retain and get new higher earners in the city. No need for the additional rate cut. As I pointed out last night the £100k cliff edges for childcare and allowance withdrawal are more damaging than the additional rate. One of our bean counters suggested yesterday that removing these would cost £2.5bn but generate an additional £10-12bn in economic activity as high earners take on more work without worrying about having to fund childcare out of pocket and the idiotic 60% marginal rate.
I think my suggestion from yesterday would have been best, remove the cliff edges and bring the additional rate down to 43% and start it at £100k. That way works for everyone and eliminates the odd disincentives to work. Right now we're dealing with this situation at work, one of my staff is now moving down to 4 days per week because she can't afford the pay rise that would lose her the government funded childcare. It's completely mad.
You example above is why I don’t think they had an actual clue or any help with any of this.
There are a whole number of things they could have done way better with a little thought but instead it’s almost like they’ve been given a wish list by some people and implemented them without a seconds thought or secondary review.
Indeed, one of the reasons people can't get GP appointments is due to this oddity as well. Loads of GPs are going part time to avoid the cliff. They don't earn over £150k to make it worthwhile to stay full time but it is enough that should they stay full time it means £16k in childcare costs and marginal rates at 60%, plus they can't make pension AVCs easily without attracting punitive taxes.
A working parent of two kids is better off earning £99.9k at 4 days per week than £125k at 5 days per week. Between those two salaries there's around a £10k increase on net pay buy a £16k increase in childcare costs. It's also inexpensive to fix.
But if they are not earning £150,000 pa and getting the benefits of the latest Conservative give-away policies, that merely shows that they are losers. And they ought to find another job that pays a decent salary. Like being a merchant banker or an IT consultant.
Isn't that the approved Conservative response? It seems to be the response to people like teachers and nurses and binmen....
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Overpay the mortgage as much as you can, as long as house price inflation is greater than 2.5%, which it virtually always is. The increase in the value of the bricks and mortar is untaxed. Savings interest is taxed. I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
Rather they’re pointing out that for a particular band of earners, there’s literally no point in increasing your earnings at the margin. No one’s asking us to feel sorry for them; they’re just complaining, rightly, about the economic inefficiency.
Kwarteng could have fixed that instead of going for the headline rate cut. Might have meant fewer doctors working part time, too.
None of it effects me, but I’m happy to acknowledge the point.
I'm trying to get my head around people on £100,000 getting help with childcare.
I’m not defending that. Just saying that even on the government’s own terms, it’s a shit budget.
If they wanted to cut tax for the wealthiest, in order to encourage growth, there were more efficient ways to do it.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
Yes, the swing votes of those earning over £100k are going to be critical…
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
Rather they’re pointing out that for a particular band of earners, there’s literally no point in increasing your earnings at the margin. No one’s asking us to feel sorry for them; they’re just complaining, rightly, about the economic inefficiency.
Kwarteng could have fixed that instead of going for the headline rate cut. Might have meant fewer doctors working part time, too.
None of it effects me, but I’m happy to acknowledge the point.
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Not a financial expert, but surely it is a straight comparison of interest rates. Need to take into account tax in your interest calculation if your interest exceeds your tax free limit on your savings
See my response to Casino re using 0% credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards to get extra cash, interest rate free, to help pay off mortgage. Need to ensure you have funds or another transfer available when interest free period runs out. Helps if you have a flexible mortgage so you know you are never going to be caught out. I had a mortgage linked to a saving account where I could transfer in and out of free of any charges, although I never needed it. I was always able to get a free of charge 0% balance transfer card within the last 3 months of the existing card.
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Overpay the mortgage as much as you can, as long as house price inflation is greater than 2.5%, which it virtually always is. The increase in the value of the bricks and mortar is untaxed. Savings interest is taxed. I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
If the savings were in an ISA then presumably it would be different?
Only those earning over £155k are actually seeing real tax cuts.
So pretty much everyone earning over minimum wage, sees yesterday’s announcements reduce their tax bill compared to the previous status quo.
Yeah - I think the IFS are being misleading for lefty social media clout. They are rolling all the post-Covid measures into the assessment of the minibudget.
They're not even rolling all of them, they've cherrypicked the ones that help their case. To include the frozen tax threshold change but not include the rise in NI threshold change is odd.
Yesterday's announcements should be judged on their own merits, but that wouldn't get lefty clickbait. The IFS are selling their integrity for retweets.
Older PBers might remember a time when the IFS was regarded as right-wing and not a branch of Momentum. A time, say, before yesterday.
As a general view on life, I think nothing is ever as bad or as good as it seems.
Certainly this budget has been received very badly (even by those like me who come away about £2000 pa better off in the short term) but the fiscal drag from inflation will actually mean that we remain a high tax country, so the deficit will not be as bad as projected. I don't expect any detectable effect on growth as nothing has been done to address the reasons for our poor growth in recent decades.
But if the fiscal drag is real where is the giveaway overall?
Ultimately the government has come out with some radical fiscal changes and it has not been publicly costed by the OBR or Treasury. How else can the markets react?
Exactly so. This isn't the giveaway budget that it is billed as, due to fiscal drag and inflation.
It is redistributive from the poor to the rich, apart from the energy cap that is fairly neutral.
The plan (such as it is) for growth is on the deregulation. By scrapping environmental and social protections Trussnomics thinks it will spur growth.
The IR35 relaxations for example will encourage people to become "self employed" thereby voluntarily giving up their rights under employment law.
TBH, it does not look like it would take much for that sort of anger to spill over into violence against the army. No wonder the officers stay behind their troops!
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Overpay the mortgage as much as you can, as long as house price inflation is greater than 2.5%, which it virtually always is. The increase in the value of the bricks and mortar is untaxed. Savings interest is taxed. I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
Depends on the amount, if you can find an ISA paying more than 2.5% you can get 120 grand into that over 6 years. If a higher rate taxpayer youd want a 4% return in a non ISA product to allow for tax etc. Id personally prefer just paying down the mortgage but if rates really rocket there will be products offering better returns for the duration of the fix
“ The original autopsy report, signed Nov. 7, 2019, said McClain's cause of death could not be determined, but new information that emerged during a grand jury investigation prompted the state attorney general's office to order a second autopsy...”
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
I get your attitude to this but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And it is not, generally, PB posters saying they are disincentivized, but pointing out that this is having a serious effect on public services, most particularly the NHS.
Combined with the pension tax regime for long servers, the current tax arrangements are a serious drain on expertise and headcount amongst the people we rely most upon to keep the NHS (as an example) running. You may question their public duty if you like but they are making a calculation that most people make at all levels of life, particularly as they approach retirement age. Is it worth me carrying on doing this or, if I can afford it, am I just better off packing it in and doing something else?
All true enough but a bit academic. I keep saying that in politics, perception is more important than reality and the perception around the country will be that the average person has just been stuffed. Anyone complaining about childcare and the difficulty of being on £100K will get zero sympathy.
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Overpay the mortgage as much as you can, as long as house price inflation is greater than 2.5%, which it virtually always is. The increase in the value of the bricks and mortar is untaxed. Savings interest is taxed. I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
Depends on the amount, if you can find an ISA paying more than 2.5% you can get 120 grand into that over 6 years. If a higher rate taxpayer youd want a 4% return in a non ISA product to allow for tax etc. Id personally prefer just paying down the mortgage but if rates really rocket there will be products offering better returns for the duration of the fix
We've got a 5 year fixed at 1.4%, it's a 40 year mortgage so I am putting my earnings into a savings account/investing them into the markets
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
Rather they’re pointing out that for a particular band of earners, there’s literally no point in increasing your earnings at the margin. No one’s asking us to feel sorry for them; they’re just complaining, rightly, about the economic inefficiency.
Kwarteng could have fixed that instead of going for the headline rate cut. Might have meant fewer doctors working part time, too.
None of it effects me, but I’m happy to acknowledge the point.
I'm trying to get my head around people on £100,000 getting help with childcare.
I’m not defending that. Just saying that even on the government’s own terms, it’s a shit budget.
If they wanted to cut tax for the wealthiest, in order to encourage growth, there were more efficient ways to do it.
It's presentation though isn't it. People understand a 5% drop in tax, not so much other stuff. The same reason Govts avoid increasing income tax rates but do increase NI, in particular the unlimited 1% and then 2% which was income tax in all but name (except for excluding pensioners).
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
If you can find a savings product with a better than 2.5% return, yes. If not, carry on overpaying if it is without penalty etc
I think it's a psychological question as well as a financial question. Overpaying to reduce the outstanding debt is easier to stick to than putting money aside with the intention of doing it later.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Have you considered an offset mortgage?
See my post. I was suggesting the same. Mine was slightly more expensive in terms of headline interest rate, but overall cheaper as all my savings was offset against my mortgage and most people want to keep some funds available so you are getting them to work for you at the mortgage rate rather than a savings rate elsewhere.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
And Ted Heath. And the Stronger In campaign. And everyone else who worked out that it would probably go like this, but didn't come up with a sufficiently witty meme saying so.
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
I get your attitude to this but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And it is not, generally, PB posters saying they are disincentivized, but pointing out that this is having a serious effect on public services, most particularly the NHS.
Combined with the pension tax regime for long servers, the current tax arrangements are a serious drain on expertise and headcount amongst the people we rely most upon to keep the NHS (as an example) running. You may question their public duty if you like but they are making a calculation that most people make at all levels of life, particularly as they approach retirement age. Is it worth me carrying on doing this or, if I can afford it, am I just better off packing it in and doing something else?
All true enough but a bit academic. I keep saying that in politics, perception is more important than reality and the perception around the country will be that the average person has just been stuffed. Anyone complaining about childcare and the difficulty of being on £100K will get zero sympathy.
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
But they can see how stupid it is that someone who earns £99,999 gets funded childcare and someone who earns £100,000 doesn't. Whether or not there is sympathy is irrelevant.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
"Shy" being the PC woke term for "shallow and dishonest" there.
Question is, how many tory voters can fairly be described that way? - very few surely!
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
A slightly less cynical take is that Trussanomics is like Brexit in that we have once-fringe politicians who have held the same unchanging and unexamined opinions for 40 years suddenly enacting these policies with no reflection or evaluation in light of changed circumstances. That Kwasi cut headline tax rates without raising thresholds might be evidence for that view.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
Yes, the swing votes of those earning over £100k are going to be critical…
A direct, cynical attack on Lib Dems by the chancellor.
Politically though, how many senior journalists are in this kind of pay bracket? Quite a few I suspect. They’ll have been doing their own domestic calculations in time for the Sundays.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
That 'boom' in jobs is not nearly enough if we want to target a GDP per capita 50% higher.
What is the "fall in Cable yesterday" that Cicero refers to?
Cable is the technical name for the GBP/USD exchange rate.
Technical? More of the City slang.
It came about because the first telecom cable was laid between NY and London, so all the sterling exchange rates were set in London except “cable” which was the rate they were paying for sterling in New York
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
That 'boom' in jobs is not nearly enough if we want to target a GDP per capita 50% higher.
A higher GDP per capita doesn't necessarily feed through into higher median income, which is how living standards are measured. What we want is 50% higher median incomes. A 5% cut at the top does nothing to achieve that. Speaking as someone who benefits the vast majority of the money that people will save from their tax bill will end up invested or sitting idle in a bank account.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
It would be useful to have a computed effective tax and public services rate so the US can be compared with Europe. Personal taxes plus property taxes plus consumption / petrol taxes plus health insurance.
Europe more expensive for road transport and commuting, US more expensive for healthcare.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
Yes, the swing votes of those earning over £100k are going to be critical…
A direct, cynical attack on Lib Dems by the chancellor.
Politically though, how many senior journalists are in this kind of pay bracket? Quite a few I suspect. They’ll have been doing their own domestic calculations in time for the Sundays.
I'd say that most 'senior' journalists have made most of their money, whatever it is, from tax-free gains in the value of their own house in or close to London.
For an analogue compare the wealth levels of MPs elected under the old expenses system where the taxpayer paid for mortgages, and the new system where they don't.
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
I get your attitude to this but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And it is not, generally, PB posters saying they are disincentivized, but pointing out that this is having a serious effect on public services, most particularly the NHS.
Combined with the pension tax regime for long servers, the current tax arrangements are a serious drain on expertise and headcount amongst the people we rely most upon to keep the NHS (as an example) running. You may question their public duty if you like but they are making a calculation that most people make at all levels of life, particularly as they approach retirement age. Is it worth me carrying on doing this or, if I can afford it, am I just better off packing it in and doing something else?
All true enough but a bit academic. I keep saying that in politics, perception is more important than reality and the perception around the country will be that the average person has just been stuffed. Anyone complaining about childcare and the difficulty of being on £100K will get zero sympathy.
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
But they can see how stupid it is that someone who earns £99,999 gets funded childcare and someone who earns £100,000 doesn't. Whether or not there is sympathy is irrelevant.
People always get caught by the step from one tax level to another, but that is not the point I am making.
The vast bulk of the country - i.e. most voters - earn less than £100K. They will not be looking favourably at anyone complaining about the effects of being on £100K.
This is not a budget that will appeal to the bulk of voters, especially in former RedWall seats. This is a stupid budget if you want to win an election in 2 years time.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
That 'boom' in jobs is not nearly enough if we want to target a GDP per capita 50% higher.
A higher GDP per capita doesn't necessarily feed through into higher median income, which is how living standards are measured. What we want is 50% higher median incomes. A 5% cut at the top does nothing to achieve that. Speaking as someone who benefits the vast majority of the money that people will save from their tax bill will end up invested or sitting idle in a bank account.
It doesn't sound like you think there is any scope for real growth so we should just focus on redistribution.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
Yes, the swing votes of those earning over £100k are going to be critical…
A direct, cynical attack on Lib Dems by the chancellor.
Politically though, how many senior journalists are in this kind of pay bracket? Quite a few I suspect. They’ll have been doing their own domestic calculations in time for the Sundays.
I'd say that most 'senior' journalists have made most of their money, whatever it is, from tax-free gains in the value of their own house in or close to London.
For an analogue compare the wealth levels of MPs elected under the old expenses system where the taxpayer paid for mortgages, and the new system where they don't.
Wealth yes, income no. Unless you’ve made multiple millions on property you still rely on salary to pay the bills. The rest goes towards retirement she inheritance. So they’ll definitely notice their marginal tax rate hasn’t budged.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
Rather they’re pointing out that for a particular band of earners, there’s literally no point in increasing your earnings at the margin. No one’s asking us to feel sorry for them; they’re just complaining, rightly, about the economic inefficiency.
Kwarteng could have fixed that instead of going for the headline rate cut. Might have meant fewer doctors working part time, too.
None of it effects me, but I’m happy to acknowledge the point.
I'm trying to get my head around people on £100,000 getting help with childcare.
I’m not defending that. Just saying that even on the government’s own terms, it’s a shit budget.
If they wanted to cut tax for the wealthiest, in order to encourage growth, there were more efficient ways to do it.
It's presentation though isn't it. People understand a 5% drop in tax, not so much other stuff. The same reason Govts avoid increasing income tax rates but do increase NI, in particular the unlimited 1% and then 2% which was income tax in all but name (except for excluding pensioners).
No, it’s not. They put this budget forward knowing it was going to be unpopular. Making it economically inefficient as well is just stupidity. It fails on its own terms.
And people on £100k aren’t going to be convinced by the headlines; they do the maths.
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
Overpay the mortgage as much as you can, as long as house price inflation is greater than 2.5%, which it virtually always is. The increase in the value of the bricks and mortar is untaxed. Savings interest is taxed. I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
House price inflation is irrelevant, you locked in to whatever house prices are going to do when you bought. It's return on money elsewhere which matters.
Genuine question for our financial experts. I've got just under 6 years left on a 10 year fixed rate mortgage at 2.49%. After that was over there was meant to be another 10 years left. I have where possible been trying to overpay the mortgage.
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
If you can find a savings product with a better than 2.5% return, yes. If not, carry on overpaying if it is without penalty etc
I think it's a psychological question as well as a financial question. Overpaying to reduce the outstanding debt is easier to stick to than putting money aside with the intention of doing it later.
Yes, plus the chance of 'finding another use for it'
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
But the issue is that this isn't that situation, the people who benefit are a very small section of society, the top 1% earners. Even if we extend that out to the aspirational 5% it's not enough to build an election winning coalition. A cut in the higher rate would have done what you're describing. The additional rate has been accepted for what it is and a top rate of 47% for earnings over £150k isn't the end of the world, people who earn that much aren't struggling, in fact they're doing pretty well.
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Would you agree that making the UK a cheaper place to employ highly-paid people improves our competitiveness in the global service economy?
Yes, that was true before or after the cut. That's why the economic multiplier is so poor. Compared to our competitor nations personal taxation is already low.
If you compare the total income taxation in California to the UK for someone earning c. $500k, UK taxes were higher before the abolition of the 45% rate.
Yes, but they have to live in America. That's a huge drawback for loads of people. Tax rates aren't the only bit of the equation and at 47% the top marginal rate was competitive enough, as we can see from the boom in City banking and law jobs over the last few years.
That 'boom' in jobs is not nearly enough if we want to target a GDP per capita 50% higher.
A higher GDP per capita doesn't necessarily feed through into higher median income, which is how living standards are measured. What we want is 50% higher median incomes. A 5% cut at the top does nothing to achieve that. Speaking as someone who benefits the vast majority of the money that people will save from their tax bill will end up invested or sitting idle in a bank account.
It doesn't sound like you think there is any scope for real growth so we should just focus on redistribution.
There absolutely is, but growth at the top does nothing to help someone earning £28k (the current median income). What helps that person is creation of well paid jobs in the middle which needs business investment. Cutting personal tax at the top doesn't help grow business investment. If anything cutting personal taxes at the top and hoping that more very high paid jobs are created for absolute tax growth is the redistributive path because you're hoping that the increased tax take at the top can be transferred by the state to the middle and bottom.
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
I get your attitude to this but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And it is not, generally, PB posters saying they are disincentivized, but pointing out that this is having a serious effect on public services, most particularly the NHS.
Combined with the pension tax regime for long servers, the current tax arrangements are a serious drain on expertise and headcount amongst the people we rely most upon to keep the NHS (as an example) running. You may question their public duty if you like but they are making a calculation that most people make at all levels of life, particularly as they approach retirement age. Is it worth me carrying on doing this or, if I can afford it, am I just better off packing it in and doing something else?
All true enough but a bit academic. I keep saying that in politics, perception is more important than reality and the perception around the country will be that the average person has just been stuffed. Anyone complaining about childcare and the difficulty of being on £100K will get zero sympathy.
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
But they can see how stupid it is that someone who earns £99,999 gets funded childcare and someone who earns £100,000 doesn't. Whether or not there is sympathy is irrelevant.
People always get caught by the step from one tax level to another, but that is not the point I am making.
The vast bulk of the country - i.e. most voters - earn less than £100K. They will not be looking favourably at anyone complaining about the effects of being on £100K.
This is not a budget that will appeal to the bulk of voters, especially in former RedWall seats. This is a stupid budget if you want to win an election in 2 years time.
But they're also not in favour of the additional rate cut, so if the government were ready to be unpopular and push tax cuts for higher earners better to do the one that makes sense.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
Unfair on the MPC. We do not need higher interest rates to fight inflation caused by supply-side shocks. The MPC got that right. However, we might need higher interest rates to shore up the pound, and a falling pound causes inflation of imports . It's complicated.
A kind offer, but my politics are of the liberal centre right. I haven't left the Conservative Party - it has left me. As a result I find myself increasingly homeless, and from the messages I get and conversations I have I think I am far from alone
I don't agree with a lot of what Barwell has said or done but I do commend his ability to stick to his beliefs.
Only those earning over £155k are actually seeing real tax cuts.
So pretty much everyone earning over minimum wage, sees yesterday’s announcements reduce their tax bill compared to the previous status quo.
Yeah - I think the IFS are being misleading for lefty social media clout. They are rolling all the post-Covid measures into the assessment of the minibudget.
They're not even rolling all of them, they've cherrypicked the ones that help their case. To include the frozen tax threshold change but not include the rise in NI threshold change is odd.
Yesterday's announcements should be judged on their own merits, but that wouldn't get lefty clickbait. The IFS are selling their integrity for retweets.
Older PBers might remember a time when the IFS was regarded as right-wing and not a branch of Momentum. A time, say, before yesterday.
Who said Momentum? The head of IFS was a Brown-era economic adviser and senior Treasury civil servant. At least prima facie, there is no case to think of this as a right-wing body. The analytics is fine, but the messaging that "only X is richer" is based on blaming the wicked Tories for lockdown, which is true but not the articulation they're using!
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
Totally ignoring how most ordinary people are going to pay their energy and food bills
Interesting read here on PB this morning as people complain about how the Chancellor's tax cuts disincentivize them to work further because it hits hard when you are on £100K....
I get your attitude to this but it is, unfortunately, a fact of life. And it is not, generally, PB posters saying they are disincentivized, but pointing out that this is having a serious effect on public services, most particularly the NHS.
Combined with the pension tax regime for long servers, the current tax arrangements are a serious drain on expertise and headcount amongst the people we rely most upon to keep the NHS (as an example) running. You may question their public duty if you like but they are making a calculation that most people make at all levels of life, particularly as they approach retirement age. Is it worth me carrying on doing this or, if I can afford it, am I just better off packing it in and doing something else?
All true enough but a bit academic. I keep saying that in politics, perception is more important than reality and the perception around the country will be that the average person has just been stuffed. Anyone complaining about childcare and the difficulty of being on £100K will get zero sympathy.
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
But they can see how stupid it is that someone who earns £99,999 gets funded childcare and someone who earns £100,000 doesn't. Whether or not there is sympathy is irrelevant.
People always get caught by the step from one tax level to another, but that is not the point I am making.
The vast bulk of the country - i.e. most voters - earn less than £100K. They will not be looking favourably at anyone complaining about the effects of being on £100K.
This is not a budget that will appeal to the bulk of voters, especially in former RedWall seats. This is a stupid budget if you want to win an election in 2 years time.
The stupidest cliff edge in the tax system is the VAT registration threshold. Make it higher or lower.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
They have announced tidal lagoons as part of the green policy
This from the Observer in April
Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at Cardiff University, said large tracts of agricultural land in Britain were being covered in solar panels despite the lack of sunshine in winter, but reliable tidal power was not being properly exploited.
“The problem with tidal lagoons and barrages is that you don’t get the power until they are virtually completed, and that can take years,” he said.
Large-scale schemes offered value for money compared with other energy sources, he added, but the government needed a better funding model for such projects.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “The government absolutely recognises the great potential of tidal power. This is why we have provided the marine energy sector with £175m of innovation and research and development funding, as well as ringfencing a £20m budget for tidal stream energy, for which bids are expected for Welsh projects.
“The UK is a global leader in tidal power, to the extent that almost 50% of the world’s installed tidal stream capacity is in UK waters.”
We don’t give a damn about the size of his balls; it’s his competence that’s in question.
But isnt that the point? Its in question, i.e. its not been answered. We await the results. With some trepidation, admittedly, but we await nonetheless
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
It is of course very interesting to see the same party that never wanted to talk about debt to GDP under Labour in 2010 because it wasn't historically high in the run up to the crash, now wanting to talk about it exclusively.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
Pointless to hire people to build stuff and do more economic activity at 3.6% unemployment. They would just be crowding out something else. (which is partly why Kwarteng's stimulus is expected to raise rates by 0.5 to 1 per cent)
Today are leading with a think tank opinion, everyone but very rich WORSE OFF after a £45B giveaway budget.
Really?
Journalism at its best. Every one who pays income tax or NI, is better off as a result of the measures announced yesterday.
Not really, this budget will add hundreds of pounds per month onto mortgage costs abd extend our period of high inflation by an extra 6 months. The small saving on NI will be wiped out by these twin costs. Only people earning £250k or more will actually be better off IMO.
How many people actually have variable rate mortgages? I was under the impression it was less than 2 million in the U.K. Its why interest rates are such a poor tool. If you rate is fixed, it has no effect until you need to re-fix.
How many people have their fix coming to an end in the next year? We are not America where 30 year fixes are the norm, we're a nation of 5-year fixed rates which means a great many people are about to need to negotiate a new mortgage deal.
Think of it as a chance to relive the glory years of Blair when the top rate of tax was 40%.
Why don’t you actually address what I’m saying?
If you want to win the next election you need to win over people that have now swapped to Labour. About 10% of them. How does this budget bring them back? In fact I’d say it tells them not to come back.
And it loses the Red Wall as it is not what they voted for.
Your responses seem to entirely be ignoring it and instead telling me how bad Blair was in multiple ways. He hasn’t been the PM since 2007.
Without commenting on their overall electoral prospects, one thing a clear dividing line on tax policy will do is create shy Tory voters who tell everyone how terrible it is that they aren't paying more tax and then vote for them to avoid a Labour chancellor.
Yes, the swing votes of those earning over £100k are going to be critical…
Where's the video of the "Not even in the top 50%" man when you need it.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
Totally ignoring how most ordinary people are going to pay their energy and food bills
I mean there was an initial cost 60 billion energy bill cap measure, direct support of 400 quid to everybody, more for the worse off
The budget in full - how do we get economic growth?
1. Bribe those earning over £150K to work more hours by cutting their taxes.
2. Threaten those on UC with benefit sanctions if they can't/won't work more hours.
Seems fair to me. Not.
It seems to me that the idea is that tax cuts for the rich will cause them to want to spend more money but not spend more money because that would be increasing demand which the Tories don't want so instead they'll spend it on business and that will employ people who want to work because they need the money and I've just kept on talking because I don't have a clue what I am talking about copyright Liz Truss 2022
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
We don’t give a damn about the size of his balls; it’s his competence that’s in question.
He´s not betting ON our "incredible country" though, is he? He is betting WITH our incredible country. If he screws it up it will take more than an apology to recover whatever is left of his reputation... Which headlines will appear in the Express then? Kwasi in the Khazi? KameKwasi?
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
A slightly less cynical take is that Trussanomics is like Brexit in that we have once-fringe politicians who have held the same unchanging and unexamined opinions for 40 years suddenly enacting these policies with no reflection or evaluation in light of changed circumstances. That Kwasi cut headline tax rates without raising thresholds might be evidence for that view.
How does that work, when the constant drone for months has been about Truss being an individual who keeps changing her opinions every few minutes?
(Morning all)
BTW, the Week at Westminster is very good this week.
And if you listen to Weekend Woman's Hour, the headline item is about the women's sheep-shearing record holder, who has granted them an interview (claims the radio-ad).
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
Well I can understand that Nats might be having a few jitters here, because if Malcolm Bruce is right, the SNP have shot their own fox.
I think we should watch Edinburgh property prices and see.
Today are leading with a think tank opinion, everyone but very rich WORSE OFF after a £45B giveaway budget.
Really?
Journalism at its best. Every one who pays income tax or NI, is better off as a result of the measures announced yesterday.
Not really, this budget will add hundreds of pounds per month onto mortgage costs abd extend our period of high inflation by an extra 6 months. The small saving on NI will be wiped out by these twin costs. Only people earning £250k or more will actually be better off IMO.
How many people actually have variable rate mortgages? I was under the impression it was less than 2 million in the U.K. Its why interest rates are such a poor tool. If you rate is fixed, it has no effect until you need to re-fix.
How many people have their fix coming to an end in the next year? We are not America where 30 year fixes are the norm, we're a nation of 5-year fixed rates which means a great many people are about to need to negotiate a new mortgage deal.
The last numbers I saw were 11 million total mortgages, 90-95% of new ones being fixed, and 75% of the total number being fixed.
It is of course very interesting to see the same party that never wanted to talk about debt to GDP under Labour in 2010 because it wasn't historically high in the run up to the crash, now wanting to talk about it exclusively.
Very interesting indeed.
Sfaict Team Truss blames George Osborne rather than Gordon Brown, just as the Thatcherites blamed Heath and Barber rather than Wilson and Callaghan for inflation.
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
Well I can understand that Nats might be having a few jitters here, because if Malcolm Bruce is right, the SNP have shot their own fox.
No, they cut the additional rate and turn it into an independence issue "look we can't even set our own tax rates".
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
They have announced tidal lagoons as part of the green policy
This from the Observer in April
Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at Cardiff University, said large tracts of agricultural land in Britain were being covered in solar panels despite the lack of sunshine in winter, but reliable tidal power was not being properly exploited.
“The problem with tidal lagoons and barrages is that you don’t get the power until they are virtually completed, and that can take years,” he said.
Large-scale schemes offered value for money compared with other energy sources, he added, but the government needed a better funding model for such projects.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “The government absolutely recognises the great potential of tidal power. This is why we have provided the marine energy sector with £175m of innovation and research and development funding, as well as ringfencing a £20m budget for tidal stream energy, for which bids are expected for Welsh projects.
“The UK is a global leader in tidal power, to the extent that almost 50% of the world’s installed tidal stream capacity is in UK waters.”
The Swansea Bay project was axed when Truss was Chief Sec of the Treasury.
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
I’m sure Merkel, Macron, Sturgeon and Drakeford have played their dastardly part, mind.
How Sturgeon reacts to the dropping of the Additional Rate in England, is going to be fun to watch.
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Ah, the latest Nat killing silver bullet plucked by dimwit Yoons, even Scottish LDs. I bet SLabbers are biting their lips to stop making the same point.
Well I can understand that Nats might be having a few jitters here, because if Malcolm Bruce is right, the SNP have shot their own fox.
I think we should watch Edinburgh property prices and see.
‘if Malcolm Bruce is right’
Have a heart, it’s a bit early to have to cope with side splitting hysteria.
So - enrichment for the very few, especially Truss's campaign donors, and public and private impoverishment for everyone else. That seems to be the size of it.
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
There are two factors on which to judge them. Do we get the growth? What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
"Do we get the growth?"
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
They have announced tidal lagoons as part of the green policy
This from the Observer in April
Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at Cardiff University, said large tracts of agricultural land in Britain were being covered in solar panels despite the lack of sunshine in winter, but reliable tidal power was not being properly exploited.
“The problem with tidal lagoons and barrages is that you don’t get the power until they are virtually completed, and that can take years,” he said.
Large-scale schemes offered value for money compared with other energy sources, he added, but the government needed a better funding model for such projects.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “The government absolutely recognises the great potential of tidal power. This is why we have provided the marine energy sector with £175m of innovation and research and development funding, as well as ringfencing a £20m budget for tidal stream energy, for which bids are expected for Welsh projects.
“The UK is a global leader in tidal power, to the extent that almost 50% of the world’s installed tidal stream capacity is in UK waters.”
The Swansea Bay project was axed when Truss was Chief Sec of the Treasury.
That was when energy costs did not justify the project
This crisis has changed everything and tidal is now part of the mix
Comments
The adage is that everyone should benefit from the proceeds of growth, well right now 1% are benefiting from the proceeds of borrowing that the rest will have to pay for.
Ultimately the government has come out with some radical fiscal changes and it has not been publicly costed by the OBR or Treasury. How else can the markets react?
With the increase in interest rates would I now be better putting the extra money into a savings account which I then use to pay off some of the mortgage in 6 years time?
For many the special fiscal operation is going to disincentivise them from eating and switching the heating on.
Growth is, as Truss exclaims the answer, but there is no money or affordable borrowing left to stimulate growth. So how do we achieve it?
If we remained in the EU we could run the economy down as we are doing and expect some social fund grants at the end of the rainbow, but we don't even have that backstop now.
Isn't that the approved Conservative response? It seems to be the response to people like teachers and nurses and binmen....
I am not a financial expert, but I can do arithmetic.
Just saying that even on the government’s own terms, it’s a shit budget.
If they wanted to cut tax for the wealthiest, in order to encourage growth, there were more efficient ways to do it.
See my response to Casino re using 0% credit cards and 0% balance transfer cards to get extra cash, interest rate free, to help pay off mortgage. Need to ensure you have funds or another transfer available when interest free period runs out. Helps if you have a flexible mortgage so you know you are never going to be caught out. I had a mortgage linked to a saving account where I could transfer in and out of free of any charges, although I never needed it. I was always able to get a free of charge 0% balance transfer card within the last 3 months of the existing card.
It is redistributive from the poor to the rich, apart from the energy cap that is fairly neutral.
The plan (such as it is) for growth is on the deregulation. By scrapping environmental and social protections Trussnomics thinks it will spur growth.
The IR35 relaxations for example will encourage people to become "self employed" thereby voluntarily giving up their rights under employment law.
If a higher rate taxpayer youd want a 4% return in a non ISA product to allow for tax etc.
Id personally prefer just paying down the mortgage but if rates really rocket there will be products offering better returns for the duration of the fix
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/elijah-mcclains-death-ketamine-injection-amended-autopsy-report-rcna49024
“ The original autopsy report, signed Nov. 7, 2019, said McClain's cause of death could not be determined, but new information that emerged during a grand jury investigation prompted the state attorney general's office to order a second autopsy...”
This is not an election winner of a budget. This is a PR disaster.
(Just thought I'd chuck that in, as I haven't read it yet this morning).
Even if GDP increases, they are vulnerable to the response made by that woman in the North East (I think) during the referendum campaign to someone on the Remain side: "That may be your GDP. It isn't my GDP."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are just doing what will benefit themselves and could not care less about anyone else. A growing economy (assuming this even happens) is worthless if only a very few get the rewards.
From Johnson's "Fuck business" to Truss's "Fuck all of you".
Question is, how many tory voters can fairly be described that way? - very few surely!
Politically though, how many senior journalists are in this kind of pay bracket? Quite a few I suspect. They’ll have been doing their own domestic calculations in time for the Sundays.
It came about because the first telecom cable was laid between NY and London, so all the sterling exchange rates were set in London except “cable” which was the rate they were paying for sterling in New York
We might get to see in real-life, how high-earners behave in an environment where they can easily move jurisdictions.
Europe more expensive for road transport and commuting, US more expensive for healthcare.
For an analogue compare the wealth levels of MPs elected under the old expenses system where the taxpayer paid for mortgages, and the new system where they don't.
The vast bulk of the country - i.e. most voters - earn less than £100K. They will not be looking favourably at anyone complaining about the effects of being on £100K.
This is not a budget that will appeal to the bulk of voters, especially in former RedWall seats. This is a stupid budget if you want to win an election in 2 years time.
Do we get the growth?
What do they do with that new economic reality?
At the moment its just 'i dont think it will work and i think they'll be beastly'
Its a bit like the talk of emergency bank rate meetings. If the BoE had done its job in the first place it wouldnt be necessary. They havent raised far or quick enough, they need to play catch up.
They put this budget forward knowing it was going to be unpopular.
Making it economically inefficient as well is just stupidity. It fails on its own terms.
And people on £100k aren’t going to be convinced by the headlines; they do the maths.
Kwasi Kwarteng tells the Express he will ‘never apologise for having the courage to bet big on our incredible country’
https://twitter.com/sam_lister_/status/1573407694886780929
We don’t give a damn about the size of his balls; it’s his competence that’s in question.
Eric Clapton had a catchy tune about it.
https://twitter.com/buckiedim/status/1571986153070546946?s=46&t=If2GVTiu8Pz5Uys0PwcUpg
A kind offer, but my politics are of the liberal centre right. I haven't left the Conservative Party - it has left me. As a result I find myself increasingly homeless, and from the messages I get and conversations I have I think I am far from alone
I don't agree with a lot of what Barwell has said or done but I do commend his ability to stick to his beliefs.
What growth stimulus is there? Where are the big infrastructure projects that would employ thousands and plough their salaries back into the economy? They could have announced tidal lagoons to generate greener electricity to prevent future cost of living crises. No help today but people would see the vision and look forward to the jobs that might actually arise.
This is not a budget. It is simply another "rob those at the bottom" move which is all the "Conservatives" have been doing since Cameron lost power.
And yet a pay rise for nurses and doctors will?
The public are sitting and laughing at these muppets.
This from the Observer in April
Roger Falconer, emeritus professor of water and environmental engineering at Cardiff University, said large tracts of agricultural land in Britain were being covered in solar panels despite the lack of sunshine in winter, but reliable tidal power was not being properly exploited.
“The problem with tidal lagoons and barrages is that you don’t get the power until they are virtually completed, and that can take years,” he said.
Large-scale schemes offered value for money compared with other energy sources, he added, but the government needed a better funding model for such projects.
A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “The government absolutely recognises the great potential of tidal power. This is why we have provided the marine energy sector with £175m of innovation and research and development funding, as well as ringfencing a £20m budget for tidal stream energy, for which bids are expected for Welsh projects.
“The UK is a global leader in tidal power, to the extent that almost 50% of the world’s installed tidal stream capacity is in UK waters.”
Very interesting indeed.
Totally and completely out of his depth, is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
1. Bribe those earning over £150K to work more hours by cutting their taxes.
2. Threaten those on UC with benefit sanctions if they can't/won't work more hours.
Seems fair to me. Not.
EDIT: Got it - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/bbc-question-time-audience-member-who-earns-more-than-ps80k-believes-it-doesn-t-put-him-in-the-top-50-per-cent-of-earners-when-it-puts-him-in-the-top-five-per-cent-a4293496.html
Still can't believe Burgon didn't call him a dick live on air.
(Morning all)
BTW, the Week at Westminster is very good this week.
And if you listen to Weekend Woman's Hour, the headline item is about the women's sheep-shearing record holder, who has granted them an interview (claims the radio-ad).
20 point lead, nailed on.
@rcs1000 will go Bursar.
I think we should watch Edinburgh property prices and see.
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1573341467912929287?s=21&t=fZgySTIEv0WD2DH4ugNxjQ
Have a heart, it’s a bit early to have to cope with side splitting hysteria.
A carrot only for the top 1%.
For the rest, just be grateful that the stick isn't bigger.
This crisis has changed everything and tidal is now part of the mix
As we discussed the other day new PMs bounces are actually in recent years inversely correlated with how well they did at the subsequent election.