Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.
Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.
If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.
But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.
If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:
(1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.
(2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.
(3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)
(4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.
(5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.
YMMV
With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
The household price cap solution cannot be used on business, for there is no cap for business - it actually has to be two different solutions, households and business.
So I read 1) as reference to just the household scheme. The point RCS is making, if we weren’t wasting many billions on the household cap, those many wasted billions, handed out to people who don’t need a hand out at all, can instead be in play to support business. There really is no arguing with that point is there - value for money brings money in play for something else, wasted money due to lazy lack of effort and imagination from government, deprives support from other needy causes.
If you are advocating the widespread introduction of means testing for all Government handouts then I would be strongly in agreement with you in principle. Indeed my wife and I took that principle to the point of being threatened with court about 15 years ago because we took a stand against the Government trying to give us tax credits when we didn't think we needed or deserved them.
But there are lots of people who oppose means testing on principle and many more who also have good arguments about it costing more than it saves.
Yep - means testing costs serious money to both administrator and pay.
Worse the stigma attached and knowledge required to claim money means a lot of those most in need do not claim and receive it...
It's a lot more sensible to work out how to give the money to everyone who hits some easy to identify criteria and then deduct it from those who shouldn't have got it...
It is one of the reasons I support a universal income that is fiscally neutral by clawing back where needed through progressive taxation. It gets money to those that need it simply and reduces the need for benefits.
NEW and WOW: Steve Baker, former head of ERG apologises to Ireland and the EU for “not always behaving” in a way that they would “trust us” in Brexit negotiations . “I am really sorry about that because relations with Ireland are not where they should be” https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1576609125919649794
A good thing to do. Perhaps the EU and Ireland might reciprocate?
Very welcome comments from Baker . I do hope relations can improve between the EU and UK.
I have been maintaining that for a long time and Truss going to Macron's inaugural meeting of the new European political group in Prague later this week is the one bit of good news in a bleak period
May has lost her seats, but Truss will lose her hundreds of seats ...
We are now in the astonishing position where the Tories could actually even lose more seats next May under Truss in the local elections than the 1,330 Tory councillors and candidates in Tory held wards who lost their seats in May 2019. Then the Tories got 28% NEV under May, last night however Opinium had the Tories on just 27%
Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:
People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.
So, the general message is that people who are on lower incomes should either freeze in Winter or find better paid work. Great. Firstly the UK 'jobs miracle' that Boris Johnson always used to go on about largely consists of minimum wage crap jobs, so how are all these people suddenly meant to find the kind of upper middle class employment that will still pay them just about enough to heat and eat properly? Secondly, a lot of those who are in full-time employment and yet already rationing fuel use and buying budget brands (or even visiting food banks) are the very same key workers that we were all entreated to praise, and engage in performative pot banging in honour of, only a couple of years ago. If all the chronically underpaid care home workers, nurses and so on who struggle with their bills tried to piss off to work in city financial institutions (or, for that matter, in Aldi) then we, as a nation, would be completely sunk.
These are our rulers. Tone deaf, cruel and absolutely thick as mince.
While I think Jake Berry is a tone deaf idiot, I think the misery porn can be overblown. Anyone in middle class employment lives very well.
In my experience it all depends on your housing situation. If you have a double income of £5k / month and a mortgage payment of £500 per month, then you are doing ok.
Obviously, the size of one's mortgage and the amount of equity in one's house makes a huge difference.
May has lost her seats, but Truss will lose her hundreds of seats ...
We are now in the astonishing position where the Tories could actually even lose more seats next May under Truss in the local elections than the 1,330 Tory councillors and candidates in Tory held wards who lost their seats in May 2019. Then the Tories got 28% NEV under May, last night however Opinium had the Tories on just 27%
And it would be just the same under Johnson
Nope, the Tories got 30% NEV in May's local elections this year even at his lowest point
Health service implosion update: 22 hours since the ambulance was originally summoned, and 14 hours since it actually arrived to collect her, mother-in-law is still sat in the back of it as it remains parked outside the hospital.
The NHS is way past the creaking and groaning stage. It's a heap of rubble.
How is she?
Still in the ambulance according to most recent report, and no worse for the experience insofar as we can tell. Husband strongly suspects, however, that she is driving the poor ambulance crew up the wall...
Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:
People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.
One of the reasons the Conservatives do well is they offer aspiration - the opportunity to make your and your family's life better. Now, there's nothing wrong with that and indeed I'd argue both Labour and the Liberal Democrats would also support aspiration.
The propaganda of generations however has convinced many Labour simply wants everyone beholden to or dependent on the State - again, not true but it's an easy argument.
Some will seek to improve themselves as Berry suggests - that's how we all progress whether within one career or firm or organisation or by moving from job to job across companies.
That's not true or possible for everyone - yes, there are plenty of vacancies out there but as is often the case supply and demand doesn't match up. In many key areas, there are shortages of skilled staff, in others people can't progress because there are no opportunities.
It's the converse of Tebbit though no less ludicrous. Indeed, as a wise person once said, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase.
Truss will get Kwarteng to announce the U-turn, if it happens. Swiftly followed by his resignation.
Then she can focus on energy bills and supporting Ukraine. She might even wear a new necklace.
If she does not announce it on Wednesday in her speech, she will be in even deeper do-do
If a 40% top rate of tax is good enough for Ireland, why is it unacceptable for the UK?
It's not the rate, it's the timing, the optics and the context
Look, I'd benefit massively (on my return to the UK) from the dropping of the tax rate.
But I think it's madness to be cutting my taxes, while reducing benefits in real terms, during the middle of a cost of living crisis.
If I was going to do something for higher earners, it would be getting rid of the ridiculous stuff around £100k with the removal of the tax free allowance, etc.
Yes, I scratch my head over the top tax rate reduction, and ending the cap on bankers' bonuses. You do that sort of thing when the economy is doing fine.
If I were Chancellor (swapping one 1994 Trinity alumni for another), I would have made a few changes:
(1) I wouldn't have introduced an energy price cap costing 6.5% of GDP. Ultimately, that won't reduce energy demand as much as it should, because it is dulling the price signal. By contrast, I would have looked at direct support payments to families, that would have covered (on average) 70% of the increase in their bills. If they'd wanted to use that money to pay for energy they could; or they might decide instead to use it on insulation, solar panels, or jumpers. In this way, we'd spend less money, preserve the price signal, and cut gas electricity/demand by more, while avoiding too much pain.
(2) I would not have gotten rid of the 45% rate of tax. Indeed, I think I might have increased it to 50%, but I would have raised the rate at which it applied to (say) incomes in excess of £250k.
(3) I would have gotten rid of the removal of the tax free allowance, and all the distortion that causes at c. £100k. (Ditto childcare allowances, etc.)
(4) I would have introduced much lower rates of stamp duty for anyone "trading down". We want to encourage old people in big, empty houses to move to smaller places, not make it extremely expensive.
(5) I would equalise tax treatment of mortgage interest between corporate entities and individuals.
YMMV
With regard to (1) how would you have dealt with the wholesale collapse of SMEs, with most of our shops and hospitality industry going out of business because of the high energy costs?
You make a good point: I was solely thinking of household, but clearly we would need to do something about SMEs too.
But my general point is that it is better to give money to people to support them, while not diminishing the incentive to reduce energy usage.
There are a lot of people on here who are seeing virtually no change in their energy bills: these people are not being incentivized to cut u usage.
Someone has helpfully posted a clip from the interview that Conservative Chairman Jake Berry did with Sophy Ridge this morning, so I can quote him directly:
People know that when their bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or they can get higher salary or higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That's the approach the Government is taking. We are saying "Look, let's create growth so households can afford their bills" as well as the brilliant work we're doing on energy bills.
One of the reasons the Conservatives do well is they offer aspiration - the opportunity to make your and your family's life better. Now, there's nothing wrong with that and indeed I'd argue both Labour and the Liberal Democrats would also support aspiration.
The propaganda of generations however has convinced many Labour simply wants everyone beholden to or dependent on the State - again, not true but it's an easy argument.
Some will seek to improve themselves as Berry suggests - that's how we all progress whether within one career or firm or organisation or by moving from job to job across companies.
That's not true or possible for everyone - yes, there are plenty of vacancies out there but as is often the case supply and demand doesn't match up. In many key areas, there are shortages of skilled staff, in others people can't progress because there are no opportunities.
It's the converse of Tebbit though no less ludicrous. Indeed, as a wise person once said, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase.
The so called aspiration rhetoric of the Tories is bullshit to a great extent. The old school tie and inherited status, intrinsic to Toryism, do much to stifle entrepreneurship in the U.K.
It would be really rather good for the country if entrepreneurialism could disentangle itself from Toryism.
Comments
The propaganda of generations however has convinced many Labour simply wants everyone beholden to or dependent on the State - again, not true but it's an easy argument.
Some will seek to improve themselves as Berry suggests - that's how we all progress whether within one career or firm or organisation or by moving from job to job across companies.
That's not true or possible for everyone - yes, there are plenty of vacancies out there but as is often the case supply and demand doesn't match up. In many key areas, there are shortages of skilled staff, in others people can't progress because there are no opportunities.
It's the converse of Tebbit though no less ludicrous. Indeed, as a wise person once said, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase.
But my general point is that it is better to give money to people to support them, while not diminishing the incentive to reduce energy usage.
There are a lot of people on here who are seeing virtually no change in their energy bills: these people are not being incentivized to cut u usage.
It would be really rather good for the country if entrepreneurialism could disentangle itself from Toryism.