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
Comments
-
First?0
-
FPT
I would eat a pineapple laden pizza every day for a year if it meant Ken Clarke was the Chancellor today and for the next decade.dixiedean said:Ken Clarke talking sense about Thatcher era budgets.
5 -
FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.0
-
Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?TheScreamingEagles said:First?
0 -
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.3 -
A close Russian relative thinks that Chernenko was the best modern leader. Because he was dead for his entire time in office.ydoethur said:
Thatcher herself hasn't.Roger said:
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?dixiedean said:Ken Clarke talking sense about Thatcher era budgets.
If you just arrived from Mars you'd be forgiven for wondering why he hasn't been sectioned
Mind you, she has been dead for nine years.
- wars started 0
- Money stolen 0
- Etc etc3 -
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 too1 -
Holiday proper starts today.ydoethur said:
Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?TheScreamingEagles said:First?
0 -
I see Johnson thanked Putin for his inspirational leadership.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-thanks-vladimir-putin-for-inspirational-leadership-instead-of-zelenskyy-12703631
0 -
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.1 -
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.11 -
It's only polite to show one's appreciation to one's benefactors.Foxy said:I see Johnson thanked Putin for his inspirational leadership.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-thanks-vladimir-putin-for-inspirational-leadership-instead-of-zelenskyy-127036315 -
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.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.0 -
Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.0
-
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.0 -
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.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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 too1 -
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....williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
1 -
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/15739649849205104651 -
That economy was inherited from 18 years of Thatcherism. You seem to think the results were worth it.Daveyboy1961 said:
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....williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.1 -
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.4 -
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.Daveyboy1961 said:
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....williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.1 -
I would note that those with the broadest shoulders are still bearing by far the heaviest load.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.0 -
A Freudian slip, for sure.Mexicanpete said:
It's only polite to show one's appreciation to one's benefactors.Foxy said:I see Johnson thanked Putin for his inspirational leadership.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-thanks-vladimir-putin-for-inspirational-leadership-instead-of-zelenskyy-127036311 -
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.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 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.0 -
If I recall correctly, Brown brought in the higher rate in the dying days of his administration as an electoral trap for Cameron.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.1 -
Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.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.
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.0 -
“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.”IshmaelZ said:
What is splash in a chippy?Eabhal said:FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.
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
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.
2 -
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.0 -
Was that about the same time he reduced the pay for the PM, as a gift from the bitter loser to the following PMwilliamglenn said:
If I recall correctly, Brown brought in the higher rate in the dying days of his administration as an electoral trap for Cameron.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.1 -
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.Cookie said:
I would note that those with the broadest shoulders are still bearing by far the heaviest load.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.4 -
I prefer NBC to actual malt vinegar on chips. Milder and more subtle.carnforth said:
“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.”IshmaelZ said:
What is splash in a chippy?Eabhal said:FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.
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
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.0 -
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.Gardenwalker said:
Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.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.
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.3 -
And the main point beautifully and punchilly put by you as usual. It was incredibly politically tone deaf.TheScreamingEagles said:First?
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.1 -
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.0 -
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.3 -
Enjoy 😎TheScreamingEagles said:
Holiday proper starts today.ydoethur said:
Are you on holiday? Or have you nobly foregone it to guarantee we don't get incinerated?TheScreamingEagles said:First?
0 -
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.0 -
How much inflation until that 1% "gain" is negated by fiscal drag on the personal allowance?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 too1 -
It might work politically.DavidL said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.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.
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.
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.0 -
...
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.Gardenwalker said:
Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.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.
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.
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.0 -
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.1 -
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.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.0 -
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.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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.0 -
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:0 -
Heads certainly deserve to roll for this fiasco.ydoethur said:0 -
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.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
In short, its a stupid, badly designed wealth tax but at least it is a capital tax of a sort.1 -
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 ?0 -
As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.MoonRabbit said:
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:0 -
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';0 -
Having the RAF bomb Eton College to rubble should be a priority for Labour's first week in office.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 ?1 -
Sharp and acutely angled.ydoethur said:
As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.MoonRabbit said:
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:0 -
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';2 -
It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.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 ?0 -
Stop trying to be knife to me.Carnyx said:
Sharp and acutely angled.ydoethur said:
As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.MoonRabbit said:
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:0 -
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';0 -
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.2 -
I’m interested inLuckyguy1983 said:...
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.Gardenwalker said:
Your opinion seems to have hardened since Friday, which I’m glad about.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.
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.
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.
You’re right.DavidL said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
In short, its a stupid, badly designed wealth tax but at least it is a capital tax of a sort.
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.
1 -
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.williamglenn said:
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.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.
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.1 -
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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 now0 -
In Burton-on-Trent it means a serving of mashed-up tinned tomatoes on top. I’m not joking.Eabhal said:FPT anyone know what "splash" is? Fish and chips shop.
0 -
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.ydoethur said:
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.0 -
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.0 -
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.3 -
The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.MaxPB said:
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.williamglenn said:
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.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.
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.0 -
On a pedantic, if rather belated (i'd clean forgotten, despite it being a boyhood favourite) point, 1789 and French might be quibbled at:ydoethur said:
Stop trying to be knife to me.Carnyx said:
Sharp and acutely angled.ydoethur said:
As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.MoonRabbit said:
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:
https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-maiden/0 -
Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.dixiedean said:
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.ydoethur said:
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-20222 -
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
0 -
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.Gallowgate said:
How much inflation until that 1% "gain" is negated by fiscal drag on the personal allowance?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 too0 -
It does seem weird but is this ideology trumping common sense and worse political senseNigelb 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 ?0 -
Westminster voting intention:
LAB 45% (+3)
CON: 33% (-2)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 7k sample
Chgs. w/ 11 Sep
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/15740336180910858240 -
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.0 -
It's only weird if you start from the premise these people are acting in good faith.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It does seem weird but is this ideology trumping common sense and worse political senseNigelb 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 ?
I am no longer particularly inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.1 -
Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.ydoethur said:
Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.dixiedean said:
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.ydoethur said:
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
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.4 -
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.0 -
"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."Carnyx said:
On a pedantic, if rather belated (i'd clean forgotten, despite it being a boyhood favourite) point, 1789 and French might be quibbled at:ydoethur said:
Stop trying to be knife to me.Carnyx said:
Sharp and acutely angled.ydoethur said:
As an historian, I had the drop on you all there.MoonRabbit said:
Sharp from you as always. 🤭ydoethur said:
https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/the-maiden/
Given Dr G's fate this puts Don't invent beheading machines up there with Don't march on Moscow.
1 -
It does when you look at Truss and Kwarteng's mates.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.1 -
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.0 -
I support lower taxes for alleek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.0 -
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.williamglenn said:
The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.MaxPB said:
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.williamglenn said:
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.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.
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.0 -
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question0 -
Should also add.dixiedean said:
Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.ydoethur said:
Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.dixiedean said:
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.ydoethur said:
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
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.
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.2 -
How many billions?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
Or are you just making stuff up?0 -
So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question1 -
With that kind of ballsiness I'm surprised he was not promoted before now.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 ?0 -
I don’t think anyone seriously believes the £150k rate cut will “drive more jobs”.MaxPB said:
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.williamglenn said:
The rate cut combined with the depreciation in Sterling undoubtedly makes it a relatively more attractive place to hire people.MaxPB said:
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.williamglenn said:
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.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.
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.
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.3 -
They have promised investment in the NHS, Social Care, Education and now Defence that runs into billionsGardenwalker said:
How many billions?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
Or are you just making stuff up?
You are surely not suggesting they do not intend investing billions into these areas0 -
He's got more balls than the Swilcan Burn. But probably in a similar fix.kle4 said:
With that kind of ballsiness I'm surprised he was not promoted before now.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 ?0 -
If they do wreck the economy then they will be out of office for a long timeCarnyx said:
So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question1 -
A lie then. If the purpose is to deceive, it's a lie.williamglenn said:
It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.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 ?0 -
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.Big_G_NorthWales said:
If they do wreck the economy then they will be out of office for a long timeCarnyx said:
So you are happy with the "conservative" government wrecking the economy, but will still blame Labourt for the results.Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question1 -
No, the purpose is to avoid having words put in his mouth.kle4 said:
A lie then. If the purpose is to deceive, it's a lie.williamglenn said:
It depends how you define 'favour'. Kwarteng is just giving a Clintonian answer.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 ?0 -
On paper, so are the Tories.Big_G_NorthWales said:
They have promised investment in the NHS, Social Care, Education and now Defence that runs into billionsGardenwalker said:
How many billions?Big_G_NorthWales said:
You misunderstand meGardenwalker said:
It’s quite weird because in the next breath he says they are being ideological.eek said:
So you are happy with this “conservative” government and its tax cutting for the really very wealthy rather than those aspiring to be wealthy…Big_G_NorthWales said:
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 defenceGardenwalker said:
Keir’s questions to answer are about his ability to sell his vision.Big_G_NorthWales said:
We are not often on the same page but I agree with your last sentenceGardenwalker said:
Not at all.williamglenn said:
Trickle down is just a pejorative slogan, not the essence of the policy.Gardenwalker said:
No, my attitude is based on what works.williamglenn said:
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.Gardenwalker said:
I think income is taxed too highly, and I’m not thrilled by the 45% rate.Cookie said:
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.williamglenn said:
Would you characterise New Labour as trickle-down economics? Blair slapped down any attempts to increase the top rate from 40%.Daveyboy1961 said:
scraps off the rich men's table....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
Trickle down economics is just p*ssing downwards on the less well off, and laughing about it afterwards.
But I’m also not stupid enough to believe that it ought to be the prime area for tax cutting.
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.
You're "not thrilled by the 45% rate"; Truss has abolished it. For you it would never have been the right time.
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.
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
I’m delighted with the general direction of economic policy I’ve seen so far from the Labour team.
And his main beef seems to be with Labour for wishing to fund public services.
Labour promise billions for NHS and public services and in the climate they are likely to enter it is a fair question
Or are you just making stuff up?
You are surely not suggesting they do not intend investing billions into these areas
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.
2 -
The like was obviously for the conclusion - not the content!dixiedean said:
Should also add.dixiedean said:
Yeah. I'm supposed to be building a 1on 1 relationship with an autistic child.ydoethur said:
Not surprised, given where you work. This article makes grim reading.dixiedean said:
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.ydoethur said:
Mostly the former.Carnyx said:
Lack of candidate dominies or lack of dosh?ydoethur said:
Schools themselves have a problem too. 54% were unable to fill at least some vacancies last year, up from 29% the year before.Carnyx said:
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).pigeon said:
Conservative Party and its financial backers = Ancien Regimekle4 said:Are lower income people really still people though? Certainly not worthy of consideration.
Rest of country = peasants
Solution patented by the French in 1789.
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.';
Bear in mind, it is more expensive to import temporary staff than hire permanent ones. Supply costs roughly £1250 per week.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/almost-twice-many-schools-struggling-recruit-teachers-2022
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.
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.0
