2022 mini-budget discussion

[Dis86]

The SNP are not in power in Westminster, they don't even hold a majority government in Holyrood.

What would the result have been had all those that voted SNP voted Labour?

 

[visibleman]

They've made their money from shorting the pound, now it's time to backtrack and spin

There is certainly a whiff of Kwasi helping his ol' mates out, especially as it seems he was the one that pushed for some of the policies without cabinet discussion.

Interesting to see what damage has been done though...

 

[glenimp617]

Great more elitism.

Perfect

 

[Murphy]

Isn't Amazon's warehouses mainly 2 - 4 people, keeping an eye on any machine failures?

Backed up by a company of engineers who come to fix those failures, a company that makes the machines, a company that programs the machines, and companies that supply those companies with all the stuff they need to do their jobs, etc, etc.

I've never really bought into the whole machines will take our jobs despair, yes some jobs get replaced by machines but (not having researched it) i suspect all that does is move jobs to other, higher skilled, sectors.

e: Or at least it should if we had a government with any fore-site and willingness to invest in the workforce.

 

[Ahleckz]

Sorry, not sure if you've misread this, but the 60% effective tax rate isn't for "super high earners", it kicks in at 100k which is very slightly above the average salary for a full-time worker in the City of London (which was £94k in 2021 apparently). The same people who will have the largest mortgages that are going to go up by the largest amounts with the interest rate rises.

The amount it kicks in at hasn't changed at all since 2009. If it had followed inflation, it should be at £142k now, which would reduce the number of people affected by it hugely.

Am I saying that people earning 100-125k are poor? No, of course they're not, but they're hardly rolling around in cash. "Super high earners" earn multiple hundreds of thousands/millions/billions. I still find it amazing that the government and media have managed to convince the general public (especially in super low cost areas) to think that those doing long hours in mid-level professional services jobs on low six figures are their "enemy" when they're closer to the general public than they are to the actual super high earners.

Oh come on. If you’re earning £100k+ then you could have masses amounts of disposable income.

They can definitely afford to, and should, pay larger amounts of tax on the large sums of money they earn.

These people aren’t struggling and can definitely cut down easier than those in the lower bands.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Oh come on. If you’re earning £100k+ then you could have masses amounts of disposable income.

You could but you often don't. Just FYI the government still offer childcare support schemes for those earning "up to" 100k adjusted net, so it is universally recognised they are still "one of us" than "one of them".

These people aren’t struggling and can definitely cut down easier than those in the lower bands.

These people are often the ones taking the most risk - propping up the rest of the economy.

 

[Ahleckz]

You could but you often don't. Just FYI the government still offer childcare support schemes for those earning "up to" 100k adjusted net, so it is universally recognised they are still "one of us" than "one of them".

These people are often the ones taking the most risk - propping up the rest of the economy.

Tom said it was mid level people in professional services, they aren’t taking risks with their own money. I’d say the small business owners, the sole traders and the like who are risking their own money are the ones taking the most risk.

But, I’m a mid level person in the professional services but far from £100k so maybe I’m just jelly…

 

[mid_gen]

You could but you often don't.

That's their problem. They could just move somewhere cheaper like all the poorest people are told to do to better their lot.

 

[Greebo]

If Liz had wanted to be different and overhaul the UK system she should have brought in Universal Basic Income.

We will have to move to it some day so may as well start now as you obviously cant just swap over to giving everybody lets say £10k overnight and remove all their other benefits and tax free allowance etc.

Now would be a perfect time to start it the trials of it.

Eventually it would replace unemployment benefit, state pensions etc. Tens of thousands less civil servants would be needed to process all these complex benefit systems we have.

No tax free allowance would make tax simpler as well.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Tom said it was mid level people in professional services, they aren’t taking risks with their own money. I’d say the small business owners, the sole traders and the like who are risking their own money are the ones taking the most risk.

But, I’m a mid level person in the professional services but far from £100k so maybe I’m just jelly…

Those guys take risks you're right, but I am talking institutional risk taking like massive mortgages/ high OPEX. Falling from £200k to £50k probably easier than £100k to £50k as you haven't got all the essentials paid off.

That's their problem. They could just move somewhere cheaper like all the poorest people are told to do to better their lot.

They do that, then they get told they're pricing locals out.

 

[chrcoluk]

Seems like it.

Edit - hhhmm or is that the IFS's opinion.

By coincidence (upper estimates) the lost corp tax revenue is about that figure.

‘Myriad knock-on consequences from increase in the UK’s corporation tax rate’

‘Myriad knock-on consequences from increase in the UK’s corporation tax rate’

www.tax.org.uk

According to Budget red book, the corporation tax rate increase is forecast to raise an additional £11 billion – £17 billion per year from 2023 onwards, which is roughly a 30 per cent increase in corporation tax so assumes the same profits will be subject to tax just at a higher rate. The Government is correct to point out that the 25 per cent rate remains competitive when compared to other G20 economies’ headline corporate tax rates. But will it in fact raise any more money for the Government?

 

[thenewoc]

amazon has robots assisting humans not replacing them, so just increasing a worker's efficiency for now.

have you seen ocado warehouse as it seems like 2-3 people watching thousands of robots, I wonder how many thousands of employees they would have needed

AI isn't making anything cheaper either it's just increasing profit margins and replacing jobs.

soon the only thing left for humans will be gig workers.. it's like the quest system from games in real life :S

Even then they manage to cause utter chaos by going for a cigarette and burning the whole place down.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Backed up by a company of engineers who come to fix those failures, a company that makes the machines, a company that programs the machines, and companies that supply those companies with all the stuff they need to do their jobs, etc, etc.

I've never really bought into the whole machines will take our jobs despair, yes some jobs get replaced by machines but (not having researched it) i suspect all that does is move jobs to other, higher skilled, sectors.

e: Or at least it should if we had a government with any fore-site and willingness to invest in the workforce.

Once the robots are the ones making the robots we are done.

 

[thenewoc]

If Liz had wanted to be different and overhaul the UK system she should have brought in Universal Basic Income.

We will have to move to it some day so may as well start now as you obviously cant just swap over to giving everybody lets say £10k overnight and remove all their other benefits and tax free allowance etc.

Now would be a perfect time to start it the trials of it.

Eventually it would replace unemployment benefit, state pensions etc. Tens of thousands less civil servants would be needed to process all these complex benefit systems we have.

No tax free allowance would make tax simpler as well.

But then the skilled will up and leave. You can't really be first to that party unless you want to drain the country of skilled workforce.

 

[Greebo]

You could but you often don't. Just FYI the government still offer childcare support schemes for those earning "up to" 100k adjusted net, so it is universally recognised they are still "one of us" than "one of them".

These people are often the ones taking the most risk - propping up the rest of the economy.

Not on pure PAYE they arent. If they are business owners or self employed entrepreneurs and their "taxable" income is above £100k then chances are they are already "earning" £200k anyway. There are lots of sizable tax benefits to being a business owner/self employed already.

When my GF was self employed and "earning" £100k per annum her tax was only around 18% legally due to all the things she was allowed to claim and the shed loads of extra money she got from being on the VAT flat rate scheme.

 

[mid_gen]

They do that, then they get told they're pricing locals out.

Well if they do that, then what's the problem? They can afford it.

We have two main problems in this country :

1) Productivity and growth is low. We have had 12 years of Tory failure to blame for this, sacrificing our education, infrastructure and services at the altars of austerity and privatisation.

2) We don't balance the budget.

We need to invest in order to lay the foundation to build growth on, not have another lost decade of funding cuts. We need to fix the NHS and social care system. Sick people are not productive, neither are people giving up their careers to care for relatives. This idea that slashing spending is going to boost growth is an abject lie.

Taxes need to be higher ultimately, and the burden needs to fall on those that are most able to contribute without sacrificing their right to a basic, decent standard of living.

 

[Greebo]

But then the skilled will up and leave. You can't really be first to that party unless you want to drain the country of skilled workforce.

Why? They will also get the £10k per annum but have to pay more in tax. There will be a point where they will be worse off then before but equally there will be those who are better off. It will all depends where you set your 20%/40% and 45% tax bands at,.

And we arent first to the party, Even Germany have started trials paying people 1200 euros per month, none means tested.

Knowing us we will be last to the party..................

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Well if they do that, then what's the problem? They can afford it.

We have two main problems in this country :

1) Productivity and growth is low. We have had 12 years of Tory failure to blame for this, sacrificing our education, infrastructure and services at the altars of austerity and privatisation.

2) We don't balance the budget.

We need to invest in order to lay the foundation to build growth on, not have another lost decade of funding cuts. We need to fix the NHS and social care system. Sick people are not productive, neither are people giving up their careers to care for relatives. This idea that slashing spending is going to boost growth is an abject lie.

Taxes need to be higher ultimately, and the burden needs to fall on those that are most able to contribute without sacrificing their right to a basic, decent standard of living.

Salary is irrelevant then. Tax net wealth.

 

[thenewoc]

Why? They will also get the £10k per annum but have to pay more in tax. There will be a point where they will be worse off then before but equally there will be those who are better off. It will all depends where you set your 20%/40% and 45% tax bands at,.

And we arent first to the party, Even Germany have started trials paying people 1200 euros per month, none means tested.

Knowing us we will be last to the party..................

I thought you meant capping everyone to the 10K.

 

[mid_gen]

Salary is irrelevant then. Tax net wealth.

I would very happily support a system where the tax burden falls heavier on unearned income. +1