But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
How about an “influencer tax”. Every photo posted by UK residents on insta and Facebook of people’s food or photos of influencer holiday hotspots and their gym workouts is taxed at £10 per photo. The country will either have a deluge of tax or we will get rid of the scourge of unoriginal content gumming up the internet and end the hell for waiting staff as some prick spends an hour trying to get the perfect photo of their plate, will reduce the queues in cliched views and enable people to use gym equipment without someone trying to film the perfect take of themselves. Win/win.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
Either way, I agree with the poster above who said the markets are likely to offer a lukewarm reception at best. Starmer and Reeves have made sooo much of Truss 'crashing the economy' - it's in almost every speech. I feel they may have tempted the fates one too many times.
She didn’t even crash the economy, but it’s become received wisdom.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
How about an “influencer tax”. Every photo posted by UK residents on insta and Facebook of people’s food or photos of influencer holiday hotspots and their gym workouts is taxed at £10 per photo. The country will either have a deluge of tax or we will get rid of the scourge of unoriginal content gumming up the internet and end the hell for waiting staff as some prick spends an hour trying to get the perfect photo of their plate, will reduce the queues in cliched views and enable people to use gym equipment without someone trying to film the perfect take of themselves. Win/win.
Filming in gyms. £1 million tax.....£1bn if you then post it on social media trying to shame normal folk just going about their workout. That blackhole will be filled by the end of the week.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
Will of course exclude travel for government business. Otherwise between Starmer, Lammy and Miliband, they will be personally filling the black hole in no time.
Miliband flying to Brazil and back twice in a week, to attend a climate conference, has to be a new low for government travel.
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
Either way, I agree with the poster above who said the markets are likely to offer a lukewarm reception at best. Starmer and Reeves have made sooo much of Truss 'crashing the economy' - it's in almost every speech. I feel they may have tempted the fates one too many times.
She didn’t even crash the economy, but it’s become received wisdom.
I think it's becoming less received wisdom the more they say it, but it isn't through want of trying on their part.
The leak about IC rise from witin the OBR to the Times was extremely bad. Has that happened before that something has been sent to the OBR to be given the once over and it has instantly been faxed to a newspaper?
Conquest's Third Law is meant to be satirical, but...
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
How about an “influencer tax”. Every photo posted by UK residents on insta and Facebook of people’s food or photos of influencer holiday hotspots and their gym workouts is taxed at £10 per photo. The country will either have a deluge of tax or we will get rid of the scourge of unoriginal content gumming up the internet and end the hell for waiting staff as some prick spends an hour trying to get the perfect photo of their plate, will reduce the queues in cliched views and enable people to use gym equipment without someone trying to film the perfect take of themselves. Win/win.
No, please don’t do that. There’s enough of these idiots in Dubai already, we don’t want any more of them moving here!
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
How about an “influencer tax”. Every photo posted by UK residents on insta and Facebook of people’s food or photos of influencer holiday hotspots and their gym workouts is taxed at £10 per photo. The country will either have a deluge of tax or we will get rid of the scourge of unoriginal content gumming up the internet and end the hell for waiting staff as some prick spends an hour trying to get the perfect photo of their plate, will reduce the queues in cliched views and enable people to use gym equipment without someone trying to film the perfect take of themselves. Win/win.
I don't know why they didn't just put a penny on income tax, take it off NI. It wouldn't have done a huge amount but it would have at least shown some signs of intelligent life in Downing Street.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
No aspect of our politics is more driven by identity politics and social media than Reform and Faragism.
And, once again, in your desire to feel superior to your fellow citizens, you completely and utterly miss the point
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
Nobody on PB could run it this badly.
I imagine Roger would give it the good old British try.....
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
Nobody on PB could run it this badly.
I imagine Roger would give it the good old British try.....
I suspect 1 difference is we have a plan on how to fix our tax system that this Government doesn't seem to have the first idea about
1) increase income tax rates 2) remove the stupid barriers at £60,000 and £100,000 3) replace council tax with a value tax. 4). remove stamp duty on primary properties (leaving levels on secondary properties the same).
On a mission to set right the great wrongs perpetrated upon the world during World War II, controversial media personality Tucker Carlson announced that he had built a time machine to go back to the past and kill baby Winston Churchill.
Seeking a means by which he could eliminate the greatest villain of the first half of the 20th century - Churchill - and thereby prevent the astronomical bloodshed and destruction caused by the war, Carlson reportedly sank tens of millions of dollars into the research, development, and construction of the time machine.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
It’s only careless if you deliberately remove part of what she said:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour.”
Clearly she is talking about Society as an abstract that is devoid of our own influences, someone to blame that is external to us, when in fact we are all part of it, it’s not an abstract it’s, you and I, it’s our families and our neighbours.
I refer my Honourable Friend to my previous answer.
To expand, lots of us have jobs where we have to think 'what's the worst way my utterances could be clipped and abused?' Especially when dealing with clever Year 9s. Maggie's answer failed that test. 'Society isn't someone else, it begins with us, our families and neighbours' would have saved so much trouble.
Also, it's not just The Lady's enemies who have taken that quote wrongly. It's also provided cover for those who would claim to be her followers who have decided to follow her vision as far as enriching themselves, but missed the bit about using those riches to do good for others like the Samaritan did.
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
I used to do it, for well over a decade for work, the novelty quickly wears off but I doubt he’s doing Ryanair/Easyjet and stopping in Holiday Inn’s.
When you've got a popularity rating of 15%, why not just go for it? There's no material difference between 15% and 10% and at least you can leave a legacy. If the budget doesn't go through, you resign and enjoy the ensuing chaos as markets react and the government struggles to retain any economic credibility.
It would be great if Reeves turns up with a full bottle of whisky and 3 hours later we have the full PB package of fiscal reforms. Please God let it be so.
The leak about IC rise from witin the OBR to the Times was extremely bad. Has that happened before that something has been sent to the OBR to be given the once over and it has instantly been faxed to a newspaper?
Conquest's Third Law is meant to be satirical, but...
Do we know if the leak came from the OBR - if it did then the head of the OBR should be out the door today..
The leak about IC rise from witin the OBR to the Times was extremely bad. Has that happened before that something has been sent to the OBR to be given the once over and it has instantly been faxed to a newspaper?
Conquest's Third Law is meant to be satirical, but...
Do we know if the leak came from the OBR - if it did then the head of the OBR should be out the door today..
Even if it didn't come from the OBR, it came from somewhere it shouldn't.
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
I used to do it, for well over a decade for work, the novelty quickly wears off but I doubt he’s doing Ryanair/Easyjet and stopping in Holiday Inn’s.
Holiday Inns are the luxury hotels for road warriors. Travelodge or a lucky Premier Inn for most of us a couple of decades ago.
So many arguments about Ryanair too, no the £9.99 flight doesn’t cost £9.99 when you have no idea how much kit you’ll be carrying until the day before.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
They really are making it up as they go along. Government by opinion poll and newspaper reactions to kite-flying.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.
It's absurd that politicians have trapped themselves into a world where the principal tax rates can never be increased. The whole logic of a tax rate is that the tax is broadly based , and the headline rate goes up or down according to policy and the state of national finances, so that the cost of increases (or the benefit of reductions) is appropriately and widely spread.
That 'politics' apparently prevents flexing the rates of the broadly-based taxes and hence the government needs to gather up a whole load of 'special' tax changes focused on a whole series of minority interests is sub-optimal both for national governance and - almost certainly - in terms of its political impact, as those groups singled out to pay more will surely howl in protest.
When you've got a popularity rating of 15%, why not just go for it? There's no material difference between 15% and 10% and at least you can leave a legacy. If the budget doesn't go through, you resign and enjoy the ensuing chaos as markets react and the government struggles to retain any economic credibility.
It would be great if Reeves turns up with a full bottle of whisky and 3 hours later we have the full PB package of fiscal reforms. Please God let it be so.
They have a 100 seat majority and really need to JFDI. Taxes up, spending down.
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
Oh dear, they are launching a British version of Saturday night live. The US one is an institution there but can’t see it translating as it will go the way of all British satirical shows,
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
They really are making it up as they go along. Government by opinion poll and newspaper reactions to kite-flying.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.
It's absurd that politicians have trapped themselves into a world where the principal tax rates can never be increased. The whole logic of a tax rate is that the tax is broadly based , and the headline rate goes up or down according to policy and the state of national finances, so that the cost of increases (or the benefit of reductions) is appropriately and widely spread.
That 'politics' apparently prevents flexing the rates of the broadly-based taxes and hence the government needs to gather up a whole load of 'special' tax changes focused on a whole series of minority interests is sub-optimal both for national governance and - almost certainly - in terms of its political impact, as those groups singled out to pay more will surely howl in protest.
The politicians who have trapped themselves here are Starmer and Reeves.
They were stupid to give the pledge in the way it was in the first instance, they were stupid to double down on it when they got into power (focussing instead on WFA), they were stupid to raise employers NI and claim no technical breach, and they were stupid not to leave themselves enough headroom so that they’ve got more problems to fix in their second budget when their political power is weaker.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
Taking the rate that people pay basic down to £10k would raise £15billion alone. And taking the the higher rate down to £45k probably gets another five billion. It does mean every productive taxpayer gets a whopping tax increase though.
If the personal allowance falls below the state pension, then either they will need to go PAYE or every pensioner in the country will have to submit a tax return which will overwhelm HMRC and lead to an awful lot of fines being dished out.
Increasing taxation on people on minimum wage seems the least Labour like thing, possible, to do.
Or am I mad?
Brown increased income tax on the poorest taxpayers by abolishing the 10% rate he'd introduced to pay for a cut in the basic rate.
When people finally woke up to what he'd done (which I flashed on here straight away) he was forced to increase the personal allowance to compensate. So it wouldn't be the first time.
Oh dear, they are launching a British version of Saturday night live. The US one is an institution there but can’t see it translating as it will go the way of all British satirical shows,
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
I don't think the state should be paying for free childcare for those on 3 times Median income. Indeed should it be paying for anyone?
Six times median income, if both parents work and each stays a pound below the £100k cut-off. More, in fact, because mum and dad can be paid more than that as long as they salary sacrifice into their pensions until they get back below the limit.
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
Didn't everyone see through the Window Tax and had bigger windows. There are places in Hull and Yorkshire where the effects of such a tax are clearly seen.
Oh dear, they are launching a British version of Saturday night live. The US one is an institution there but can’t see it translating as it will go the way of all British satirical shows,
Didn't they try that once already? And in a better viewer market?
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
They really are making it up as they go along. Government by opinion poll and newspaper reactions to kite-flying.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.
It's absurd that politicians have trapped themselves into a world where the principal tax rates can never be increased. The whole logic of a tax rate is that the tax is broadly based , and the headline rate goes up or down according to policy and the state of national finances, so that the cost of increases (or the benefit of reductions) is appropriately and widely spread.
That 'politics' apparently prevents flexing the rates of the broadly-based taxes and hence the government needs to gather up a whole load of 'special' tax changes focused on a whole series of minority interests is sub-optimal both for national governance and - almost certainly - in terms of its political impact, as those groups singled out to pay more will surely howl in protest.
The politicians who have trapped themselves here are Starmer and Reeves.
They were stupid to give the pledge in the way it was in the first instance, they were stupid to double down on it when they got into power (focussing instead on WFA), they were stupid to raise employers NI and claim no technical breach, and they were stupid not to leave themselves enough headroom so that they’ve got more problems to fix in their second budget when their political power is weaker.
Textbook on how not to run a government.
True, although eschewing the principal tax rates in favour of creative wheezes to single out and milk particular cows isn't a new feature - and apart from the downsides already identified, is a key reason why our tax code keeps on getting longer and more complicated.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Window tax likely to make a comeback?
Maybe a giant holibobs tax.
Huge taxes on cats and dogs. Mahoosive on horses.
Fishing rod tax. Enormous taxes on having a garden.
I'm sure they will have thought of some more creative ways to piss off the voters by Budget Day.
Their focus group polling on raising income tax must have been terrifying. Something they can't remotely recover from in this term. But they aren't smart enough to find a way round it to raise the funding they need.
They really are making it up as they go along. Government by opinion poll and newspaper reactions to kite-flying.
Fun to watch from a distance, but people are making real-world decisions based on the rumours - many of whom will be joining myself in expatville in the near future, at great detriment to the government’s finances.
It's absurd that politicians have trapped themselves into a world where the principal tax rates can never be increased. The whole logic of a tax rate is that the tax is broadly based , and the headline rate goes up or down according to policy and the state of national finances, so that the cost of increases (or the benefit of reductions) is appropriately and widely spread.
That 'politics' apparently prevents flexing the rates of the broadly-based taxes and hence the government needs to gather up a whole load of 'special' tax changes focused on a whole series of minority interests is sub-optimal both for national governance and - almost certainly - in terms of its political impact, as those groups singled out to pay more will surely howl in protest.
It's to abandon some of the core principles of effective taxation too. Broadly speaking, they should be simple, be levied at the point of consumption, and largely unavoidable. That's why taxes like VAT, Income Tax or property are "good" ones, and all this dithering around further down the economic chain creates lots of inefficiencies.
The only exception should be when a certain activity causes more harm than good - e.g. smoking. In that case you can justify a specific tax - but the point is not to raise revenue, but rather to reflect that societal harm in the price. The Treasury should make a very clear distinction between the two types IMO.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
No aspect of our politics is more driven by identity politics and social media than Reform and Faragism.
We've got used to Farage hanging around our body politic like the smell of fags and stale beer, but every so often I do stop and wonder at the kind of person who'd be taken in by his kind of nonsense. Clearly there are a lot of them. I really thought we were better than that in this country, but I guess we are not. Sad!
If you were someone who believed in institutional racism, this question to Eberechi Eze would raise an eyebrow. I thought the commentary at the time seemed odd. He scores a worldie, but all the commentators focus on a five yard pass from the white guy
Oh dear, they are launching a British version of Saturday night live. The US one is an institution there but can’t see it translating as it will go the way of all British satirical shows,
Who is the British Lorne Michaels?
SNL in the US only works because it’s an institution, top young writers and actors fall over themselves to get on the show for little money and an awful lot of work.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
It’s only careless if you deliberately remove part of what she said:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour.”
Clearly she is talking about Society as an abstract that is devoid of our own influences, someone to blame that is external to us, when in fact we are all part of it, it’s not an abstract it’s, you and I, it’s our families and our neighbours.
So you're saying she was fond of attacking straw men ?
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
If you were running this country, wouldn't you want to leave it as much as you could?
Nobody on PB could run it this badly.
I imagine Roger would give it the good old British try.....
I suspect 1 difference is we have a plan on how to fix our tax system that this Government doesn't seem to have the first idea about
1) increase income tax rates 2) remove the stupid barriers at £60,000 and £100,000 3) replace council tax with a value tax. 4). remove stamp duty on primary properties (leaving levels on secondary properties the same).
But then we haven’t boxed ourselves off with a witless ‘ming vase’ strategy and manifesto, and I think whatever our political allegiances here most people broadly support this.
All they had to say was ‘no plans’ and they’d be home and dry. They could have weathered the storm far easier.
When you've got a popularity rating of 15%, why not just go for it? There's no material difference between 15% and 10% and at least you can leave a legacy. If the budget doesn't go through, you resign and enjoy the ensuing chaos as markets react and the government struggles to retain any economic credibility.
It would be great if Reeves turns up with a full bottle of whisky and 3 hours later we have the full PB package of fiscal reforms. Please God let it be so.
Exactly. As I said before, it is shit or bust, may as well go for it and make the budget bill a vote of confidence.
People are trying to see what’s the highest “marginal rate on next £100 of income” they can get. 20,000% appears to the record so far, presumably from crossing £100k and losing free childcare.
I don't think the state should be paying for free childcare for those on 3 times Median income. Indeed should it be paying for anyone?
The problem isn’t the state paying or not for childcare, it’s the arbitrary cutoff which means people are working four-day weeks to avoid it.
The iniquity of the means test.
There's also the political thing that it's then much easier for high earners to say "I get nothing from the government, why should I pay so much tax?"
But if you a) want to Shrink The State and b) don't want the poor to miss out totally, you end up with lots of means-testing.
There is no good, easy answer from here. Indeed part of our current predicament is the consequences of earlier bad, easy answers catching up with us.
Means tests aimed at denying only the top 5% or 10%, invariably end up costing more to administer than they save, especially if you include rational behavioural changes such as working part time or stuffing pensions.
Better to make free childcare universal and bring the 45p income tax bracket down by a couple of grand.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Sorry but it would be a breach - no change to Income Tax means no change to start points as much as the rate itself.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Frankly the obsession with manifesto breaches - both by government and its opponents - is pathetic stuff.
A government this unpopular has no reason not to care far more about getting policy right. Trying to do so within a set of self imposed arbitrary constraints is just idiotic.
After droning on about doing the right thing for the country v the politically expedient thing it looks like it will be the latter .
If Reeves and Starmer were so worried about the political damage breaking a manifesto commitment would be then they should have not suggested they were going to do that . Now it just looks like they’re flailing around without a clue and will instead raise a range of other taxes and then hope for the best .
Messing around with thresholds looks like a sleight of hand . I’ve never known a budget where so many kites have been flown .
Labour backbenchers are living in cloud cuckoo land now being marshalled by Powell who will just say anything to ingratiate herself with them and the general public hoping to be in the right place if Starmer goes .
Unless Starmer and Reeves are incredibly lucky then this all looks like ending in tears . Where exactly is growth going to come from ?
People who don’t want a Reform government like myself just look on in horror .
If you have a majority of 170 you should carry out the policies you believe in. I can't believe they've caved in.
The trouble is that they have a sinking feeling, common amongst the even-slightly-reallistic left since the collapse of the Cold War, that the policies they believe in with their hearts, don't actually work and in fact make most things much worse. While there is no support in their party for policies that do work.
So they are left with either shameless, dishonest centrist opportunism, a la Blair, or technocratic managerialism, as Starmer has tried and failed dismally. Neither really work when you don't have a golden Thatcherite economic legacy to squander.
It was obvious that the Starmer government would end up this way, but I've been very surprised by the size and speed of the collapse.
The Labour business model is broken. It piles too much support for the public sector onto the shoulders of the private sector and then onto the voters.
What “works”, and has what worked as long as I can remember, is liberal democracy, combined with well regulated capital markets, consumer protection, a social safety net, respect for human rights and civil liberties, government support and investment in areas of potential market failure like healthcare, transportation and education, and the rule of law.
That’s not a left or right thing. It’s a civilisation thing.
And what has broken down is the loss of a sense of community; of being part of a larger whole. It’s rent maximisation from property owners; pensioners resisting any cuts; campaigners always demanding more spending on their pet projects. The WASPI women are a good example. Yes the administration was flawed. No that doesn’t mean you get billions in compensation
No one recognises that the whole has got to work for everyone anymore
The natural conclusion of identity politics and social media.
But also a certain long-serving Prime Minister with a certain careless soundbite about the non-existence of Society.
And human sinfulness that has always included a tendency to forget exactly who our neighbour is.
It’s only careless if you deliberately remove part of what she said:
“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour.”
Clearly she is talking about Society as an abstract that is devoid of our own influences, someone to blame that is external to us, when in fact we are all part of it, it’s not an abstract it’s, you and I, it’s our families and our neighbours.
So you're saying she was fond of attacking straw men ?
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
I am surprised he hasn't got sick of it by now. I have to travel a fair bit (not as much as I used to), but will be living out of hotels for nearly a month shortly. I know the upteen flight and the all you can eat hotel breakfast will wear off pretty fast.
I used to do it, for well over a decade for work, the novelty quickly wears off but I doubt he’s doing Ryanair/Easyjet and stopping in Holiday Inn’s.
Holiday Inns are the luxury hotels for road warriors. Travelodge or a lucky Premier Inn for most of us a couple of decades ago.
So many arguments about Ryanair too, no the £9.99 flight doesn’t cost £9.99 when you have no idea how much kit you’ll be carrying until the day before.
When I was paying for it myself £9 a night travelodge at Peterborough Eye was great.
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
Either way, I agree with the poster above who said the markets are likely to offer a lukewarm reception at best. Starmer and Reeves have made sooo much of Truss 'crashing the economy' - it's in almost every speech. I feel they may have tempted the fates one too many times.
She didn’t even crash the economy, but it’s become received wisdom.
She didn't have time. We're perhaps lucky not to have found out if she really could.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Sorry but it would be a breach - no change to Income Tax means no change to start points as much as the rate itself.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Frankly the obsession with manifesto breaches - both by government and its opponents - is pathetic stuff.
A government this unpopular has no reason not to care far more about getting policy right. Trying to do so within a set of self imposed arbitrary constraints is just idiotic.
It's why I'm... not angry, but disappointed, with Sunak and Hunt.
They were dead politicians walking, probably from the moment they entered Downing Street. They could have cleared some of the many landmines scattered around Westminster. What were the party or the electorate going to do? See the actions of Major and Clarke in the runup to 1997.
Instead, they ended up adding some more, and I'm pretty confident they did so knowingly.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Sorry but it would be a breach - no change to Income Tax means no change to start points as much as the rate itself.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Frankly the obsession with manifesto breaches - both by government and its opponents - is pathetic stuff.
A government this unpopular has no reason not to care far more about getting policy right. Trying to do so within a set of self imposed arbitrary constraints is just idiotic.
It's why I'm... not angry, but disappointed, with Sunak and Hunt.
They were dead politicians walking, probably from the moment they entered Downing Street. They could have cleared some of the many landmines scattered around Westminster. What were the party or the electorate going to do? See the actions of Major and Clarke in the runup to 1997.
Instead, they ended up adding some more, and I'm pretty confident they did so knowingly.
Absolutely.
It has damaged Labour, but it seems they assumed it would benefit the Tories. The reality is that it has badly holed both.
But if you’re lowering the thresholds at which people start paying (as is mooted by some articles), that’s still an income tax rise. They’re just presenting it as non manifesto breaching because it doesn’t affect the rate (nobody will be impressed with that justification but that’s what they’re going for presumably). That said, surely they won’t cut the personal allowance?
I do fear we’re back to the drawing board of lots of weird taxes around the edges of everything. This won’t collect the money she expects, and I am not convinced the markets will buy it.
Sorry but it would be a breach - no change to Income Tax means no change to start points as much as the rate itself.
And if the best this Government does is not deal with reality by putting taxes up everywhere else instead they will be deservedly heading to single figures at the next election.
Frankly the obsession with manifesto breaches - both by government and its opponents - is pathetic stuff.
A government this unpopular has no reason not to care far more about getting policy right. Trying to do so within a set of self imposed arbitrary constraints is just idiotic.
It's why I'm... not angry, but disappointed, with Sunak and Hunt.
They were dead politicians walking, probably from the moment they entered Downing Street. They could have cleared some of the many landmines scattered around Westminster. What were the party or the electorate going to do? See the actions of Major and Clarke in the runup to 1997.
Instead, they ended up adding some more, and I'm pretty confident they did so knowingly.
They were frightened that if they did nothing the party would be destroyed at the election - and they managed to keep 119 seats which is probably more than they would have done without the bribes.
Problem is we are a sophisticated knowledgeable set of people and most people aren’t. They only see the immediate issues and don’t look at the final picture
Starmer and Reeves have decided not to increase income tax.
So that means a big mansion tax is coming instead and more brought into higher rate tax.
'The chancellor is now exploring alternative ways to fill a fiscal hole estimated by economists at up to £30bn.
One option to raise revenue would involve cutting the thresholds at which people pay different rates of income tax, while leaving the headline basic and higher rates of the tax unchanged....Meanwhile people briefed on the revised plans said Reeves would also rely heavily on what has been dubbed the “smorgasbord” approach of increasing a range of narrowly-drawn taxes.
They cautioned the parts of this package could still change, but a new gambling levy and higher taxes on expensive properties are expected to be included.'
I think they were planning this as a big bonanza reveal in the budget, but it seems they have been spooked into releasing it early to try to change the news agenda.
No I think this Government leaks like a sieve because it has no control of news management. Now it may be because everything has to be seen by the OBR but I don't think it's that.
Either way, I agree with the poster above who said the markets are likely to offer a lukewarm reception at best. Starmer and Reeves have made sooo much of Truss 'crashing the economy' - it's in almost every speech. I feel they may have tempted the fates one too many times.
She didn’t even crash the economy, but it’s become received wisdom.
She didn't have time. We're perhaps lucky not to have found out if she really could.
Or perhaps she wouldn’t. Art Laffer (on the Merryn Talks Money podcast) certainly seemed to think she was on the right track and would have been okay in the end.
Comments
https://x.com/mrmbrown/status/1989216859233870144?s=61
“By the end of the month, Starmer will have spent a sixth of his premiership on foreign trips and completed six laps of the earth” (The Times)
1) increase income tax rates
2) remove the stupid barriers at £60,000 and £100,000
3) replace council tax with a value tax.
4). remove stamp duty on primary properties (leaving levels on secondary properties the same).
Seeking a means by which he could eliminate the greatest villain of the first half of the 20th century - Churchill - and thereby prevent the astronomical bloodshed and destruction caused by the war, Carlson reportedly sank tens of millions of dollars into the research, development, and construction of the time machine.
https://babylonbee.com/news/tucker-carlson-builds-time-machine-to-kill-baby-churchill
To expand, lots of us have jobs where we have to think 'what's the worst way my utterances could be clipped and abused?' Especially when dealing with clever Year 9s. Maggie's answer failed that test. 'Society isn't someone else, it begins with us, our families and neighbours' would have saved so much trouble.
Also, it's not just The Lady's enemies who have taken that quote wrongly. It's also provided cover for those who would claim to be her followers who have decided to follow her vision as far as enriching themselves, but missed the bit about using those riches to do good for others like the Samaritan did.
It would be great if Reeves turns up with a full bottle of whisky and 3 hours later we have the full PB package of fiscal reforms. Please God let it be so.
So many arguments about Ryanair too, no the £9.99 flight doesn’t cost £9.99 when you have no idea how much kit you’ll be carrying until the day before.
That 'politics' apparently prevents flexing the rates of the broadly-based taxes and hence the government needs to gather up a whole load of 'special' tax changes focused on a whole series of minority interests is sub-optimal both for national governance and - almost certainly - in terms of its political impact, as those groups singled out to pay more will surely howl in protest.
They were stupid to give the pledge in the way it was in the first instance, they were stupid to double down on it when they got into power (focussing instead on WFA), they were stupid to raise employers NI and claim no technical breach, and they were stupid not to leave themselves enough headroom so that they’ve got more problems to fix in their second budget when their political power is weaker.
Textbook on how not to run a government.
NEW THREAD
When people finally woke up to what he'd done (which I flashed on here straight away) he was forced to increase the personal allowance to compensate. So it wouldn't be the first time.
The only exception should be when a certain activity causes more harm than good - e.g. smoking. In that case you can justify a specific tax - but the point is not to raise revenue, but rather to reflect that societal harm in the price. The Treasury should make a very clear distinction between the two types IMO.
https://x.com/user84848384/status/1989101967613071489?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
SNL in the US only works because it’s an institution, top young writers and actors fall over themselves to get on the show for little money and an awful lot of work.
There's also the political thing that it's then much easier for high earners to say "I get nothing from the government, why should I pay so much tax?"
But if you a) want to Shrink The State and b) don't want the poor to miss out totally, you end up with lots of means-testing.
There is no good, easy answer from here. Indeed part of our current predicament is the consequences of earlier bad, easy answers catching up with us.
All they had to say was ‘no plans’ and they’d be home and dry. They could have weathered the storm far easier.
Better to make free childcare universal and bring the 45p income tax bracket down by a couple of grand.
A government this unpopular has no reason not to care far more about getting policy right. Trying to do so within a set of self imposed arbitrary constraints is just idiotic.
We're perhaps lucky not to have found out if she really could.
They were dead politicians walking, probably from the moment they entered Downing Street. They could have cleared some of the many landmines scattered around Westminster. What were the party or the electorate going to do? See the actions of Major and Clarke in the runup to 1997.
Instead, they ended up adding some more, and I'm pretty confident they did so knowingly.
It has damaged Labour, but it seems they assumed it would benefit the Tories. The reality is that it has badly holed both.
Problem is we are a sophisticated knowledgeable set of people and most people aren’t. They only see the immediate issues and don’t look at the final picture