[Finance] Autumn Statement

[East Staffs Gull]

Younger people often say that they think it unlikely they’ll receive a state pension. I think this is alarmism or scaremongering. I wouldn’t offer much hope to any political party whose election manifesto promised to end state pensions.

Of course it will never be included in a manifesto. That doesn’t stop them pushing up the state pension age, making the state pension means-tested, removing the triple lock, etc.

 

[Audax]

focused on those that need it more

Disagree. Analysis coming out post-announcement is that this is going to most benefit those who least need it - the richest 20% based in London and the South East. Those who need it the most won't get much at all.

Jeremy Hunt cuts national insurance but UK tax burden set to hit high amid plummeting living standards – as it happened

Chancellor cuts national insurance but OBR says UK facing biggest fall in living standards since records began

www.theguardian.com

 

[Weststander]

Disagree. Analysis coming out post-announcement is that this is going to most benefit those who least need it - the richest 20% based in London and the South East. Those who need it the most won't get much at all.

Martin Lewis has said that 28m will gain from the NI cut, also the £11.44 minimum wage will benefit the lower paid, Universal Credit is to be increased at the higher inflation month of September, whilst state pensioners get a significant increase.

The NI cut is particularly helpful for low and middle paid as a proportion of income.

 

[Audax]

Martin Lewis has said that 28m will gain from the NI cut, also the £11.44 minimum wage will benefit the lower paid, Universal Credit is to be increased at the higher inflation month of September, whilst state pensioners get a significant increase.

The NI cut is particularly helpful for low and middle paid as a proportion of income.

Yes, there's some good moves there for lower income (eg the increase in the hourly rate). However, those are being more than counterbalanced by those on lower incomes being dragged into paying more tax (or paying tax when they otherwise wouldn't) due to the freeze on the thresholds. As much as I respect Martin Lewis, he sometimes misses the forest while too busy looking at the trees.

Yes ... the lower income groups will be better off after today than they otherwise would have been. But in both cash and proportion of income terms, the economic thinktanks are pretty much agreed so far that today was a win for middle/higher income households in London / South East and not so much for the least well-off in other areas.

The link I posted illustrates it well. The least well off (example given £18.6k) will get around £2 per week. Those earning £59k+ will get over £14 per week. And in proportion terms, that bottom bracket is 0.8% while the higher bracket is 1.8%.

 

[Weststander]

Yes, there's some good moves there for lower income (eg the increase in the hourly rate). However, those are being more than counterbalanced by those on lower incomes being dragged into paying more tax (or paying tax when they otherwise wouldn't) due to the freeze on the thresholds. As much as I respect Martin Lewis, he sometimes misses the forest while too busy looking at the trees.

Yes ... the lower income groups will be better off after today than they otherwise would have been. But in both cash and proportion of income terms, the economic thinktanks are pretty much agreed so far that today was a win for middle/higher income households in London / South East and not so much for the least well-off in other areas.

Personally I like it how ML steers clear of politics and IFS style commentary. His focus is always on common sense and the hard facts on money as it affects households. He often receives hate because he won't condemn (introduced by Labour) student loans. Instead he simply explains the mechanics and the pros/cons for students/parents. I think he's great.

 

[Sorrel]

Disagree. Analysis coming out post-announcement is that this is going to most benefit those who least need it - the richest 20% based in London and the South East. Those who need it the most won't get much at all.

Jeremy Hunt cuts national insurance but UK tax burden set to hit high amid plummeting living standards – as it happened

Chancellor cuts national insurance but OBR says UK facing biggest fall in living standards since records began

www.theguardian.com

NI between the lower and upper earnings limit benefits those who earn somewhere in that amount, or above. Those who earn above the upper earnings limit will get all the benefit, but so will those who only just reach that level.

Those figures are saying that there are more people in the south east earning more than £50,000 than in other areas. The change also does not affect pensioners, so they get no benefit.

To make it benefit only those earning less you would have to increase the tax for higher earners. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next government increase the NI rate above £50,000. I expect that will be mentioned in the election campaign.

 

[Audax]

To make it benefit only those earning less you would have to increase the tax for higher earners. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next government increase the NI rate above £50,000. I expect that will be mentioned in the election campaign.

I'm in that higher bracket (not by much, but I am) and I'd support that. I'm very much in favour of increasing the burden on those who can afford to pay more, and reducing the burden for those at the lower end.

 

[BenGarfield]

Kier Starmer

If only Starmer did acknowledge Modern Monetary Theory`s insights into the way government finances work, UK economic policy could be much more sensible.

We "print" money whenever the government spends, in the main by keystrokes on a computer, which happens every day and is separate process altogether from taxation, and the issue of government bonds (erroneously called borrowing). Government finances are nothing like a household. Unlike a household the government doesnt need to balance the books either by taxing or borrowing because it is a sovereign currency issuer .

Technically the deficit is merely the difference between what the government spends and how much it receives in taxation, and can be either a good or a bad thing depending on the state of the economy at the time. If you want to know more about how government finances actually work read "An Accounting Model of the UK Exchequer 2nd Edition" by Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye, and Neil Wilson published by GIMMS. Neil Wilson recently presented this paper to representatives of the Bank of England who could`nt find fault with it.

 

[East Staffs Gull]

To make it benefit only those earning less you would have to increase the tax for higher earners. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next government increase the NI rate above £50,000. I expect that will be mentioned in the election campaign.

Recent policy has been to align the UEL and the threshold for 40% tax. Raising the figure above £50,000 would generate more NI at 10% but decrease income tax revenue at 40%. Thereby benefiting higher earners.

 

[beorhthelm]

Isn't there a bloke on here who thinks the deficit is imaginary and all we need to do is print money?

you summoned him, it's your fault.

 

[Flagship]

There was no mention of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) levy which is a hidden tax on construction companies. Firms pay 1% of their payroll and 1 1/2 % of sub-contractor labour payments towards the levy, which is there to provide training for apprentices. It really is an anchor for small businesses in the building industry because it is a tax on turnover and not on profit.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Anyone seen a half decent analysis of the 110 growth measures proposed yesterday? I heard Rachel Reeves banging on this morning about how we need growth but she did not mention these measures at all and all they are talking about on TV is personal tax. Will they work or won't they?

 

[Bodian]

all they are talking about on TV is personal tax.

And that's why the Tories are so successful over the decades. Personal gain v societal good at the ballot box generally means one result - until it all gets so bad that more people realise that the latter is actually better. Then they forget again....

 

[Bodian]

From the Guardian

 

[Worthingite]

Sounds about right. This mug nation will fall for it and vote the frauds back, blaming a shitened Labour government for all the ills. A decade later and the labour party will be even shitier and the same thing happens. Both parties getting ever more shitier and incompetent, with the more competent of the two getting the blame each time.

What a time to be alive!

I saw this a few months ago on Twitter/X and it chilled me to think that all of this is VERY plausible.

 

[Horses Arse]

I saw this a few months ago on Twitter/X and it chilled me to think that all of this is VERY plausible.

All very real, its happened before and will be worse this time. Who knows where it will all end but it won't be pretty unless you are minted

 

[beorhthelm]

I saw this a few months ago on Twitter/X and it chilled me to think that all of this is VERY plausible.

amazing how they can plan all that while being incompetent at the same time.

 

[Sorrel]

Missed the ISA changes - these are definitely a good thing: https://www.which.co.uk/news/articl...-pay-into-multiple-isas-per-year-a9hHl0y4ge7S

Waiting until next April to open a new one was very annoying; I bet it made people forget to/not bother to save when they could.

 

[Blue&WhiteSea]

Missed the ISA changes - these are definitely a good thing: https://www.which.co.uk/news/articl...-pay-into-multiple-isas-per-year-a9hHl0y4ge7S

Waiting until next April to open a new one was very annoying; I bet it made people forget to/not bother to save when they could.

Someone highlighted this to me today, also changes to allow for investment in fractional shares