2022 mini-budget discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
More lies. It never ends with this lot.

PM economic advisor insists he warned of mini-budget risk after chancellor denial​

An economic advisor to Liz Truss has insisted he warned the government over their mini-budget plans.
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng denied that he had been warned about his financial plans while talking to journalists this morning.
But Gerard Lyons, an external counsel to Ms Truss, told the PA News agency: "Well that's incorrect - I was very clear."
 
mid_gen said:
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.
Click to expand...
My view is tax cuts are ok as long as they not funded by printing money or cuts to public services.

Borrowing money is ok for investment that has a clear benefit long term. Such as social housing, and energy ownership.

Tax changes if they happen should be progressive not regressive.

The problem is we serve the richest in the country and big business, the whole direction needs to change, there is just so many voters out there who are single minded and constantly chime out silly reasons for why they keep voting for this nonsense. Including the post earlier that we need our population to shrink, so we slowly kill ourselves off and have a constant shrinking workforce to support a larger set of pensioners above them. The solution is opposite to what he said which is to build more infrastructure to support a growing population.
 
Uther said:
More lies. It never ends with this lot.

PM economic advisor insists he warned of mini-budget risk after chancellor denial​

An economic advisor to Liz Truss has insisted he warned the government over their mini-budget plans.
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng denied that he had been warned about his financial plans while talking to journalists this morning.
But Gerard Lyons, an external counsel to Ms Truss, told the PA News agency: "Well that's incorrect - I was very clear."
Click to expand...
The mind boggles......the fact that they think saying that nobody had any idea that an unfunded borrowing spree would spook the markets, is a good thing?

Economically illiterate, the lot of them.
 
The main thing I think that needs fixing is the cost of housing. Remove foreign investment in property and limit home ownership to one each. Licence landlords in the sense of regulating their property portfolio size at a personal level rather than them buying multiple properties under different company ownerships. Inflation needs regulating inclusive of property prices once the market is brought into affordable levels.
 
sandys said:
Did they, it's small beer really?

It’s a tricky one, my understanding of what they were trying to do was make the UK look more attractive to the business and high execs etc with the zones and tax reduction as the problem we have is high employment and a lot of unfilled job positions, sounds like a great problem to have but you can only get more out of existing by raising taxes when what you need is more resources (employees) paying in.

Lowering taxes to make us look more competitive to outside business and higher rate earners from elsewhere is an attempt to foster more external investment, more high quality resources, a few hundred of these is worth more to the economy than a few thousand lower quality resources.

UK are not alone in this quest, France for example implements a special tax scenarios to attract high earners specifically coming in from the UK with tax breaks for 8 years and a low flat rate with exclusion for their wealth tax.

Governments don’t really care about what we already have apart from keeping it and stemming its migration to other economies, as it’s maxed out and you’re mostly stuck at the lower end, Brexit saw to that :D It needs new money and the easiest way to do that is to rob another countries with incentives, of course the better approach would be to upskill what we have and be more productive here but that's a slow process.
Click to expand...

It is a tricky one I agree,

My only argument is that does that removal of tax % really bring in extra income and how is it measurable? I assumed the plan was to remove it, which might mean people do less clever tax stuff to avoid it = more revenue. However, counter argument is that, if thats already in place - why would they stop?

That's of course, ignoring the fact that bills are rising fast, was it the right time to remove that top rate? Why didn't someone suggest hold off? (Maybe they did, again we will never know)

Never know now of course :D
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
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
Click to expand...

looking forward to slaying 10 bears, handing over their pelts and getting rewarded with a +1 cloak of throat punching, will be mint.
 
tlrBeta said:
It is a tricky one I agree,

My only argument is that does that removal of tax % really bring in extra income and how is it measurable? I assumed the plan was to remove it, which might mean people do less clever tax stuff to avoid it = more revenue. However, counter argument is that, if thats already in place - why would they stop?

That's of course, ignoring the fact that bills are rising fast, was it the right time to remove that top rate? Why didn't someone suggest hold off? (Maybe they did, again we will never know)

Never know now of course :D
Click to expand...

The removal of the tax free allowance over £100k certainly brings in schemes. Our accountants years ago suggested that rather than paying £150k per annum to each director that its better to pay £100k one year followed by £200k the next year and use company loans to even it all out so they still get their £150k each year. So its only every 2 years the tax free allowance disappears and saves £5,625 tax every 2 years or £2,812 per annum.

But once you are in the 45% band it wont matter. People wont stop using legal schemes to reduce tax just because they are only paying 40% per annum.

My old boss used to moan and complain all the time at having to pay £300k tax on his £1m per annum income. He genuinely thought that because of the risk he was taking in running a successful business that he shouldnt pay over £100k in tax,.
 
Uther said:
More lies. It never ends with this lot.

PM economic advisor insists he warned of mini-budget risk after chancellor denial​

An economic advisor to Liz Truss has insisted he warned the government over their mini-budget plans.
Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng denied that he had been warned about his financial plans while talking to journalists this morning.
But Gerard Lyons, an external counsel to Ms Truss, told the PA News agency: "Well that's incorrect - I was very clear."
Click to expand...


all I've seen this morning is lies, lies and more lies. The Kay Burley interview was shocking!

Can we please get rid of this lot! They've done nothing but ruin this country since they came to power.
 
Ahleckz said:
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.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but factually the earnings window from 100 to 125 is the least impactful on your quality of life. Your pay increases by 25k and you get 9k in your bank. Optically it is pretty frustrating. It encourages other behaviours in small businesses and for those on PAYE to get around it.
 
TheOracle said:
all I've seen this morning is lies, lies and more lies. The Kay Burley interview was shocking!

Can we please get rid of this lot! They've done nothing but ruin this country since they came to power.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, not until late 2024 / early 2025. No way these clowns will call an early one with the polling looking the way it does.
 
SpeedFreak said:
That may be true, but factually the earnings window from 100 to 125 is the least impactful on your quality of life. Your pay increases by 25k and you get 9k in your bank. Optically it is pretty frustrating. It encourages other behaviours in small businesses and for those on PAYE to get around it.
Click to expand...
You get £9k less any benefits that you are no longer eligible for.

That £25k then becomes £9k then becomes £7k (for people with kids). Then you ask yourself, am I really going to "lose" £18k to the taxman? Answer: no, you put it into your pension.

Now the government has lost out, the economy has lost out, and you have lost out. Stagnation at the £100k level is real. I reckon it is a key contributor to high end brain drain, as folks simply need to "work for free" to break through that barrier, or "silent quit" and ride it out till they have more grey hairs.
 
Greebo said:
The removal of the tax free allowance over £100k certainly brings in schemes. Our accountants years ago suggested that rather than paying £150k per annum to each director that its better to pay £100k one year followed by £200k the next year and use company loans to even it all out so they still get their £150k each year. So its only every 2 years the tax free allowance disappears and saves £5,625 tax every 2 years or £2,812 per annum.

But once you are in the 45% band it wont matter. People wont stop using legal schemes to reduce tax just because they are only paying 40% per annum.

My old boss used to moan and complain all the time at having to pay £300k tax on his £1m per annum income. He genuinely thought that because of the risk he was taking in running a successful business that he shouldnt pay over £100k in tax,.
Click to expand...
See my post above (quoted for your benefit:)

dLockers said:
You get £9k less any benefits that you are no longer eligible for.

That £25k then becomes £9k then becomes £7k (for people with kids). Then you ask yourself, am I really going to "lose" £18k to the taxman? Answer: no, you put it into your pension.

Now the government has lost out, the economy has lost out, and you have lost out. Stagnation at the £100k level is real. I reckon it is a key contributor to high end brain drain, as folks simply need to "work for free" to break through that barrier, or "silent quit" and ride it out till they have more grey hairs.
Click to expand...


The £100k hit changes behaviours significantly. It also doesn't "net benefit" society to have the tapering allowance.

Edit: Tell a lie, you do net-benefit the economy as you end up thinking "sod it I'll get an electric car" - also paying no/bare minimum tax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom