Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The reality for lower income people vs people earning £155k and over – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 30 in General
The reality for lower income people vs people earning £155k and over – politicalbetting.com

In the lowest income households, more than a quarter of Britons have been *forced* to make spending cuts to staple foods (29%), household essentials (28%) and toiletries (27%)https://t.co/CcZuLYImPt pic.twitter.com/1VRDyQkBIK

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • First?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    First?

    Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,202
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    dixiedean said:

    Ken Clarke talking sense about Thatcher era budgets.

    Are there any respected Tories from the Thatcher era or indeed any era who hasn't hit the airways to trash Kwarteng and his budget?

    If you just arrived from Mars you'd be forgiven for wondering why he hasn't been sectioned
    Thatcher herself hasn't.

    Mind you, she has been dead for nine years.
    A close Russian relative thinks that Chernenko was the best modern leader. Because he was dead for his entire time in office.

    - wars started 0
    - Money stolen 0
    - Etc etc
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,146
    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too
  • ydoethur said:

    First?

    Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?
    Holiday proper starts today.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    edited September 25
    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    MaxPB said:

    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.

    Tech is more important than finance in terms of securing a bigger share of global high-income PAYE jobs. I think you might be missing the wood for the trees.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....
    Not even that. Pretty much everyone gets poorer over the next few years, taking account both of fiscal drag and pay settlements that are mostly well below the rate of inflation, except for the very wealthy. Nobody benefits from the existence of this Government except for its donors.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Eabhal said:

    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.

    What is splash in a chippy?
    Bartons Chip Splash is a non-brewed condiment vinegar. It is known and used widely at fish and chip shops throughout the UK instead of malt vinegar.

    per interweb
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    Labour had a much more targetted robust in work benefit system, and a much more successful economy, so the broad shoulders were given a rest. It's not the same as now. The vast majority of the country didn't have to live off scraps from tables....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Temporarily bumped perhaps, etc etc, but interesting that very narrowly the youngest bracket was more supportive than the next two.

    New @JLPartnersPolls
    in @TheSun
    on Sunday: a majority of all age groups now back the monarchy.

    Do you think the monarchy should remain in place or be abolished?

    % saying 'remain in place'
    18-24: 55%
    25-34: 52%
    35-44: 53%
    45-54: 66%
    55-64: 76%
    65+: 82%


    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1573964984920510465
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    Labour had a much more targetted robust in work benefit system, and a much more successful economy, so the broad shoulders were given a rest. It's not the same as now. The vast majority of the country didn't have to live off scraps from tables....
    That economy was inherited from 18 years of Thatcherism. You seem to think the results were worth it.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    Labour had a much more targetted robust in work benefit system, and a much more successful economy, so the broad shoulders were given a rest. It's not the same as now. The vast majority of the country didn't have to live off scraps from tables....
    Look, if we're not wealthy enough to donate too and hobnob with the kind of people who hang around with Cabinet MPs and 'think tanks' then that is our own damn fault, and we should be fortunate to clean their shoes with our tongues.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,839
    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    I would note that those with the broadest shoulders are still bearing by far the heaviest load.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    Foxy said:
    It's only polite to show one's appreciation to one's benefactors.
    A Freudian slip, for sure.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,492
    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    I understand basic schoolboy economics. I see how trickle down economics works in theory but I don't see how this trickle down effect works in practice.

    I also don't understand when the BoE is trying to dampen down spending led growth to control inflation the CoE is trying to generate spending led growth.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    If I recall correctly, Brown brought in the higher rate in the dying days of his administration as an electoral trap for Cameron.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Some of them might be animals.

    Or even birds.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.

    The budget is regressive, inflationary, and even on its own terms of driving growth, inefficient.

    The mind boggles to think what conversations are like within the Treasury at present.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,324
    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.

    What is splash in a chippy?
    Bartons Chip Splash is a non-brewed condiment vinegar. It is known and used widely at fish and chip shops throughout the UK instead of malt vinegar.

    per interweb
    “Non-brewed condiment is acetic acid mixed with colourings and flavourings, making its manufacture a much quicker and cheaper process than the production of vinegar. According to Trading Standards in the UK, it cannot be labelled as vinegar or even put in traditional vinegar bottles if it is being sold or put out on counters in fish-and-chip shops.”

    Also important for some religions, I think, who might not like to use something where brewing was involved. I can’t imagine the price is important to most chip shops compared with all their other costs.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,697

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    If I recall correctly, Brown brought in the higher rate in the dying days of his administration as an electoral trap for Cameron.
    Was that about the same time he reduced the pay for the PM, as a gift from the bitter loser to the following PM
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    Cookie said:

    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    I would note that those with the broadest shoulders are still bearing by far the heaviest load.
    Yes, and so they should. My income comes from the fact I am given the opportunity to earn a good wage in a prosperous economy with a judicial system that works and a society in which the rule of law is largely maintained. It is right that I help fund that on a progressive basis reflecting the rewards that society gives to me for my efforts.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,449
    Eabhal said:

    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.

    Splash is used in the NE. It means gravy, mushy peas or curry sauce over your chips. (Rather than in a separate pot. Which is a bizarre Geordie habit).
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755
    carnforth said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.

    What is splash in a chippy?
    Bartons Chip Splash is a non-brewed condiment vinegar. It is known and used widely at fish and chip shops throughout the UK instead of malt vinegar.

    per interweb
    “Non-brewed condiment is acetic acid mixed with colourings and flavourings, making its manufacture a much quicker and cheaper process than the production of vinegar. According to Trading Standards in the UK, it cannot be labelled as vinegar or even put in traditional vinegar bottles if it is being sold or put out on counters in fish-and-chip shops.”

    Also important for some religions, I think, who might not like to use something where brewing was involved. I can’t imagine the price is important to most chip shops compared with all their other costs.
    I prefer NBC to actual malt vinegar on chips. Milder and more subtle.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.

    The budget is regressive, inflationary, and even on its own terms of driving growth, inefficient.

    The mind boggles to think what conversations are like within the Treasury at present.
    Yes, on Friday I was trying to make the case for why this might succeed economically. Ultimately, I did not even persuade myself. Morally, its just wrong.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    First?

    And the main point beautifully and punchilly put by you as usual. It was incredibly politically tone deaf.

    Lots of talk about the casino economics on PB, but not one poster can defend the awful politics of doing this at this time. For all the comparisons with Thatcherism, Lady T would not have allowed this budget during crisis for working families - she Did the opposite, tax increases, windfall taxes and redistribution during crisis for working families. Not just all in it together from sound bite but all in it together through action.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    edited September 25

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Some of them might be animals.

    Or even birds.
    If they can afford two legs what are they bitching about?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571

    ydoethur said:

    First?

    Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?
    Holiday proper starts today.
    Enjoy 😎
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,591
    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    How much inflation until that 1% "gain" is negated by fiscal drag on the personal allowance?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.

    The budget is regressive, inflationary, and even on its own terms of driving growth, inefficient.

    The mind boggles to think what conversations are like within the Treasury at present.
    Yes, on Friday I was trying to make the case for why this might succeed economically. Ultimately, I did not even persuade myself. Morally, its just wrong.
    It might work politically.

    It is certainly a fiscal stimulus of sorts, and additional inflation might return a nominal growth figure that looks “impressive” in isolation.

    That, and possible relief on energy costs from a resolution to Ukraine, might look as if the “medicine is working”, even as the underlying fiscal reality is a lot darker.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,599
    ...

    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.

    The budget is regressive, inflationary, and even on its own terms of driving growth, inefficient.

    The mind boggles to think what conversations are like within the Treasury at present.
    You need to get your own critique straight - if it's inflationary, that means you think it will be spent in the economy and strengthen demand. That's what it's intended to do presumably, so hardly a wounding criticism.

    The Government have decided that recession is the bigger enemy than inflation, which seems sensible, given that inflation is being driven overwhelmingly by an unavoidable contraction in energy supply.

    Personally I support every measure with the exception of the top rate of tax, that one I don't have an ideological objection too, but few seem to see it as an efficient way to stimulate the economy.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    That comes back to my original point. To get things done in politics, maybe you need to be stupid/insane enough to make individual bold steps rather than waiting for a perfect policy synthesis that might never be possible.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    edited September 25

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    That comes back to my original point. To get things done in politics, maybe you need to be stupid/insane enough to make individual bold steps rather than waiting for a perfect policy synthesis that might never be possible.
    Nah. I think it’s more likely mistakes clearly made in the past, but new breeds of politicians don’t learn from those mistakes - like children they don’t listen just repeat old mistakes. If this dash for growth policy does have the economy running hot in 2 years, like it was running hot in 74, whoever wins will have to slash back their spending promises and policy promises from the election, rather than pour more fuel on the fire. UK cap in hand to IMF in late seventies was joint failure from across the parties on more than a ten year mission for growth. That was the turning point for Lady Thatcher, she backed monetarism whereas Wilson Heath and Callaghan back Keynesianism, and it failed them.

    Rather ironically, monetarism soon failed Lady T when she was in power.

    Ask everyone in todays cabinet about this, and not a single one will tell it like I just told it. But my version of the history is the right one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,571
    edited September 25
    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Heads certainly deserve to roll for this fiasco.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    Stamp duty reduction on its own is almost the exact opposite of a wealth tax. Stamp duty is of course a bizarre tax because it is paid by the purchaser rather than the person with the capital gain but, at the margins at least, it probably moderates that untaxed capital gain a bit. Reducing it will, in all likelihood, increase the untaxed capital gain, just as it did when something similar was done during lockdown.

    In short, its a stupid, badly designed wealth tax but at least it is a capital tax of a sort.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    pigeon said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Heads certainly deserve to roll for this fiasco.
    Well, they're halfway there. They've managed to turn us into a complete basket case.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
    As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085
    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    Having the RAF bomb Eton College to rubble should be a priority for Labour's first week in office.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
    As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.
    Sharp and acutely angled.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
    As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.
    Sharp and acutely angled.
    Stop trying to be knife to me.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited September 25
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605

    ...

    DavidL said:

    George Osborne always made a point of saying that those with the broadest shoulders had to carry the heaviest load. He was right. I supported this through the removal of my personal allowances, the removal of my child benefit and the fiscal drag caused by bands not keeping with inflation, all at the time that a signifcant number of people were being taken out of tax altogether by the increase in personal allowances and the minimum wage was rising considerably faster than inflation.

    This was modern, pragmatic, compassionate Conservatism and I had do problem with it. In contrast Kwarteng's budget is divisive, attacks the poor, rewards the rich and reduces the income available to government at a time when we are already spending far more than is being taken in tax and are promising to spend an absolute fortune on subsidising heating bills.

    The contention is that this will boost growth. I will be delighted if I am wrong about this but I really don't see it. Cuts in tax for the much higher paid tend to improve the savings ratio (not a bad thing in itself) but do not have anything like the multiplier effects that additional income for those living hand to mouth do. We might attract back the odd banker from Dublin or Paris but not enough to make much of a difference. I do not think that CT rates are key to DFI, there is a long list of things that are more important. The investment zones seems a rebranding of the enterprise zones we have tried before with minimal success.

    I really want the UK to succeed. I want our people to enjoy a more comfortable life. I want good, well funded, public services and I desperately want a private sector successful enough to fund them. I remain to be persuaded that this budget is the answer or even a step in the right direction. I very much hope that I am wrong.

    Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.

    The budget is regressive, inflationary, and even on its own terms of driving growth, inefficient.

    The mind boggles to think what conversations are like within the Treasury at present.
    You need to get your own critique straight - if it's inflationary, that means you think it will be spent in the economy and strengthen demand. That's what it's intended to do presumably, so hardly a wounding criticism.

    The Government have decided that recession is the bigger enemy than inflation, which seems sensible, given that inflation is being driven overwhelmingly by an unavoidable contraction in energy supply.

    Personally I support every measure with the exception of the top rate of tax, that one I don't have an ideological objection too, but few seem to see it as an efficient way to stimulate the economy.
    I’m interested in
    DavidL said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    Stamp duty reduction on its own is almost the exact opposite of a wealth tax. Stamp duty is of course a bizarre tax because it is paid by the purchaser rather than the person with the capital gain but, at the margins at least, it probably moderates that untaxed capital gain a bit. Reducing it will, in all likelihood, increase the untaxed capital gain, just as it did when something similar was done during lockdown.

    In short, its a stupid, badly designed wealth tax but at least it is a capital tax of a sort.
    You’re right.
    I just loathe it’s effect on people’s mobility and the distortionary impact on capital allocation.

    For example, I have two properties in the UK which I would likely have sold had I not been conscious of the massive tax incurred by re-entering the market.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.

    Tech is more important than finance in terms of securing a bigger share of global high-income PAYE jobs. I think you might be missing the wood for the trees.
    Potentially, but those will require for the high value jobs to be created here, not for high net worth individuals to move here from overseas.

    Unlocking business investment is a much bigger driver of tech job creation than cutting personal taxation.

    The 5% additional rate cut doesn't achieve creation of high value tech jobs.
  • Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    Eabhal said:

    FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.

    In Burton-on-Trent it means a serving of mashed-up tinned tomatoes on top. I’m not joking.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,449
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
    We are short staffed already in September. On Friday I was taken off my role to spend a day in the nursery, as the permitted adult/child ratio was being breached otherwise.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    From @TheScreamingEagles’ header:

    this budget is only likely to see growth in the Swiss and Italian economies.


    I’ve got a sniff it’ll be good for the Colombian economy too.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    edited September 25
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.

    Tech is more important than finance in terms of securing a bigger share of global high-income PAYE jobs. I think you might be missing the wood for the trees.
    Potentially, but those will require for the high value jobs to be created here, not for high net worth individuals to move here from overseas.

    Unlocking business investment is a much bigger driver of tech job creation than cutting personal taxation.

    The 5% additional rate cut doesn't achieve creation of high value tech jobs.
    The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
    As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.
    Sharp and acutely angled.
    Stop trying to be knife to me.
    On a pedantic, if rather belated (i'd clean forgotten, despite it being a boyhood favourite) point, 1789 and French might be quibbled at:

    https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-maiden/
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
    We are short staffed already in September. On Friday I was taken off my role to spend a day in the nursery, as the permitted adult/child ratio was being breached otherwise.
    Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
  • Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    How much inflation until that 1% "gain" is negated by fiscal drag on the personal allowance?
    Back of an envelope would say 5% as it is a 1/20th cut in the rate of taxation. The more complicated answer would depend what proportion of your income is bearing tax at all. Maybe 10%. So the average earner will be paying more tax (at least in nominal terms) next year.
  • Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    It does seem weird but is this ideology trumping common sense and worse political sense
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB 45% (+3)
    CON: 33% (-2)

    via
    @SavantaComRes
    , 7k sample
    Chgs. w/ 11 Sep

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1574033618091085824
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    edited September 25
    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1574033618091085824?t=ubomXhb02P41XW0PLUFGhg&s=19

    Lab 45 (+3)
    Con 33 (-2)

    Not sure whether pre or post Special Financial Operation. 7000 asked.

    Not much of a bounce for Ms Truss.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284

    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    It does seem weird but is this ideology trumping common sense and worse political sense
    It's only weird if you start from the premise these people are acting in good faith.
    I am no longer particularly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,449
    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
    We are short staffed already in September. On Friday I was taken off my role to spend a day in the nursery, as the permitted adult/child ratio was being breached otherwise.
    Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
    Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.
    TA's are increasingly not establishing any kind of stable relationship with a class or individuals. But merely being shifted daily to where they are needed. Making prep and planning redundant.
    The KS 3 Unit for those struggling and KS 4 Unit had to be merged on Friday. (KS4 Unit shut).
    Not enough staff.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    was that the cut-off point?
    Sharp from you as always. 🤭
    As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.
    Sharp and acutely angled.
    Stop trying to be knife to me.
    On a pedantic, if rather belated (i'd clean forgotten, despite it being a boyhood favourite) point, 1789 and French might be quibbled at:

    https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-maiden/
    "Ironically, the person believed to have introduced the idea for a beheading machine to Scotland – James Douglas – was himself executed on 2 June 1581 by the Maiden. An extract from the records of the Scottish Judiciary at the time records his execution."

    Given Dr G's fate this puts Don't invent beheading machines up there with Don't march on Moscow.


  • TresTres Posts: 1,362

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    It does when you look at Truss and Kwarteng's mates.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
  • eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    I support lower taxes for all
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.

    Tech is more important than finance in terms of securing a bigger share of global high-income PAYE jobs. I think you might be missing the wood for the trees.
    Potentially, but those will require for the high value jobs to be created here, not for high net worth individuals to move here from overseas.

    Unlocking business investment is a much bigger driver of tech job creation than cutting personal taxation.

    The 5% additional rate cut doesn't achieve creation of high value tech jobs.
    The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.
    I remain to be convinced that the rate cut will drive any additional £150k+ jobs in tech. Sterling diving maybe, but that's an unintended consequence of their incompetence not something they wanted, I hope.
  • eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,449
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
    We are short staffed already in September. On Friday I was taken off my role to spend a day in the nursery, as the permitted adult/child ratio was being breached otherwise.
    Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
    Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.
    TA's are increasingly not establishing any kind of stable relationship with a class or individuals. But merely being shifted daily to where they are needed. Making prep and planning redundant.
    The KS 3 Unit for those struggling and KS 4 Unit had to be merged on Friday. (KS4 Unit shut).
    Not enough staff.
    Should also add.
    The merged unit was left without a single qualified teacher. Needed elsewhere. So. Twice as many difficult kids for unqualified TA's on minimum wage to handle.
    No wonder they are so hard to find.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    How many billions?
    Or are you just making stuff up?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    With that kind of ballsiness I'm surprised he was not promoted before now.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    We would need ca. 12,000 individuals earning over £1m per year on PAYE to relocate here from overseas to generate more in absolute tax than this generates. I don't see it. If anything the removal of the financial sector bonus cap will achieve this within the existing pool of labour and everyone who would get the big bonus would have paid the additional 5% anyway.

    It's still such a poor decision and the Tories will pay for it at the next election.

    Tech is more important than finance in terms of securing a bigger share of global high-income PAYE jobs. I think you might be missing the wood for the trees.
    Potentially, but those will require for the high value jobs to be created here, not for high net worth individuals to move here from overseas.

    Unlocking business investment is a much bigger driver of tech job creation than cutting personal taxation.

    The 5% additional rate cut doesn't achieve creation of high value tech jobs.
    The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.
    I remain to be convinced that the rate cut will drive any additional £150k+ jobs in tech. Sterling diving maybe, but that's an unintended consequence of their incompetence not something they wanted, I hope.
    I don’t think anyone seriously believes the £150k rate cut will “drive more jobs”.

    As you’ve pointed out in other posts, there are other measures that would be much more effective there.

    No, this was conceived as a symbol of intent.
    Indeed, there’s evidence that Kwasi-Truss considered this some kind of “gotcha” policy to shock and awe.

    Sadly the only shock was in the currency and gilt markets.
  • eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    How many billions?
    Or are you just making stuff up?
    They have promised investment in the NHS, Social Care, Education and now Defence that runs into billions

    You are surely not suggesting they do not intend investing billions into these areas
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,085
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    With that kind of ballsiness I'm surprised he was not promoted before now.
    He's got more balls than the Swilcan Burn. But probably in a similar fix.
  • Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.
    If they do wreck the economy then they will be out of office for a long time
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.
    A lie then. If the purpose is to deceive, it's a lie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.
    If they do wreck the economy then they will be out of office for a long time
    That was likely anyway. 13-14 years in power is a lot, and chances would be if losing at that point you'll be out for some time.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,977
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is the f*cker delusional, or is he just taking the piss from those of us who aren't seriously wealthy ?

    Kwarteng denies, straight to camera, that his tax cuts favour those at the top.

    Given such a denial of plain fact - is there actually any point in interviewing him?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1573966144964272130

    Either way, WTF ?

    It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.
    A lie then. If the purpose is to deceive, it's a lie.
    No, the purpose is to avoid having words put in his mouth.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605

    eek said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    The poorest and middle earners will gain from the cuts to the basic rate etc too but the fact the biggest gainers will be the rich, especially from headline measures like the scrapping of the 45p rate and bankers' bonus cap, was not great politics.

    The government will hope it leads to growth not a rising deficit too

    scraps off the rich men's table....

    Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
    Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.
    The 45% tax rate was brought in for no reason other than the look of the thing. It wasn't brought in in the expectation of raising more revenue. I will certainly never be in favour of troubling that band, but I'm glad it's gone.
    I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.

    But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
    That attitude is a recipe for not achieving anything in politics and just going along with the consensus. Maybe it takes someone who is stupid enough to implement their ideas to get anything done.
    No, my attitude is based on what works.

    Like Truss, but also Starmer, I’m desperate to see growth in the UK economy.

    Trickle down doesn’t work.
    Prioritising those over £150k doesn’t make sense.
    Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.

    You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
    Not at all.

    I am a long term bore on reducing income tax and increasing wealth tax.

    I even responded “good” to the first rumours of stamp duty abolition.

    I would be delighted to see the 45% scrapped and stamp duty abolished in the context of new wealth taxes and a sane fiscal framework.
    We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentence

    Commentators have pointed out that understandably Starmer vows to reinstate the 45% rate, but that he is to retain the abolition of the NI charge and the reduction to 19%, which ironically is costing 10 times the reduction in the 45 % rate

    It would be churlish not to accept Truss/Kwarteng have embarked on a colossal gamble that could hand GE 24 to Starmar but I am relaxed about that now Corbyn has gone

    However, he needs to have an answer on this insane pursuit of billions of pounds in wind farm technology when we know it is unreliable (just 15% last friday) and accept we need to access gas for years to come from the North Sea and the ludicrous promise by Miliband that we will be carbon zero for energy by 2030, just over 7 years from now
    Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.

    I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
    It may not seem like it but I am relaxed about the 2024 election as of course I would like a conservative government but if labour win then it will be very interesting how they find all the billions needed to invest in the NHS, education, and now defence

    So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…
    It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.

    And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
    You misunderstand me

    Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
    How many billions?
    Or are you just making stuff up?
    They have promised investment in the NHS, Social Care, Education and now Defence that runs into billions

    You are surely not suggesting they do not intend investing billions into these areas
    On paper, so are the Tories.
    Take, for example, social care, and the 3% defence commitment.

    My point is that you actually don’t have a clue about Labour spending plans, and your querulous nonsense about their having questions to answer just makes you look like a Tory stooge.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.

    Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regime
    Rest of country = peasants

    Solution patented by the French in 1789.
    Culottes vs sans-culottes. No wonder, if they couldn't afford trousers, and folk are heading that way. At least clothes can be mitigated by trips to Oxfam etc., but there is only so much one can do in that respect. Ditto the rise of school uniform banks (a good idea anyway for recycling).

    The schools, like the extra ASDA guards discussed yesterday, are an early warning system if one but looks.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/25/schools-in-england-warn-of-crisis-of-heartbreaking-rise-in-hungry-children

    'Children are so hungry that they are eating rubbers or hiding in the playground because they can’t afford lunch, according to reports from headteachers across England.

    The headteachers say the government is leaving schools to deal with a mounting crisis – a message amplified by a new survey on food poverty in schools, due to be published next month by Chefs in Schools, a healthy eating charity which trains chefs for school kitchens. It reveals that many schools in England are already seeing a “heartbreaking” increase in hungry children, even before winter and big energy bills force more families to choose between switching on the heating and buying food.';
    Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.
    Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?
    Mostly the former.

    Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
    We are short staffed already in September. On Friday I was taken off my role to spend a day in the nursery, as the permitted adult/child ratio was being breached otherwise.
    Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.

    https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
    Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.
    TA's are increasingly not establishing any kind of stable relationship with a class or individuals. But merely being shifted daily to where they are needed. Making prep and planning redundant.
    The KS 3 Unit for those struggling and KS 4 Unit had to be merged on Friday. (KS4 Unit shut).
    Not enough staff.
    Should also add.
    The merged unit was left without a single qualified teacher. Needed elsewhere. So. Twice as many difficult kids for unqualified TA's on minimum wage to handle.
    No wonder they are so hard to find.
    The like was obviously for the conclusion - not the content!
This discussion has been closed.