[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

[tweet]1572986506867888129[/tweet]

Good thread ! A coincidence I am sure

That's a lot of Norwich scarfs and Delia Smith cookbooks.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The theory being those on higher incomes will spend their gain going out and buying stuff I guess.

It's a bit of a unicorn theory though. Someone earning £1m gains £55k a year ( probably more if they're a banker ! ). After paying the increases in energy and the mortgage they may add a couple of extra foreign holidays - some of that expenditure will stay in the UK economy but most will leave it and go to the economy of the country they holiday in. Maybe a new car. After that I would imagine they will put the extra into low tax investments - thus removing the money from the economy for now. Basically the policy and theory it utterly nuts - as the markets proved yesterday.

 

[Steve Foster]

It's a bit of a unicorn theory though. Someone earning £1m gains £55k a year ( probably more if they're a banker ! ). After paying the increases in energy and the mortgage they may add a couple of extra foreign holidays - some of that expenditure will stay in the UK economy but most will leave it and go to the economy of the country they holiday in. Maybe a new car. After that I would imagine they will put the extra into low tax investments - thus removing the money from the economy for now. Basically the policy and theory it utterly nuts - as the markets proved yesterday.

Low tax investments like VCTs, EISs, SEISs, ISAs & Pensions which all invest in UK companies, creating additional investment, corporation tax & income tax & NI to the treasury

 

[Half Time Pies]

It's a bit of a unicorn theory though. Someone earning £1m gains £55k a year ( probably more if they're a banker ! ). After paying the increases in energy and the mortgage they may add a couple of extra foreign holidays - some of that expenditure will stay in the UK economy but most will leave it and go to the economy of the country they holiday in. Maybe a new car. After that I would imagine they will put the extra into low tax investments - thus removing the money from the economy for now. Basically the policy and theory it utterly nuts - as the markets proved yesterday.

This approach has been tried time and time again with the same outcome:

A study done by the LSE looked at 18 developed countries between 1965 to 2015 and compared countries that cut taxes on the rich (for example the Reagan tax cuts in 1982), with those that didn't pursue similar policies that year.

In the five years following each tax cut the data showed no material difference in per-capita GDP or unemployment rates between countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn't.
The study actually found that tax cuts have only consistently benefited one group — the rich.

https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

 

[Bakero]

Low tax investments like VCTs, EISs, SEISs, ISAs & Pensions which all invest in UK companies, creating additional investment, corporation tax & income tax & NI to the treasury

Just admit that you think it'll be good for you and your clients.

 

[Stato]

The idea that any BBC news flagship programme is presenting a pro gov agenda suggesting a wider bias is laughable. Giving a voice to people who you don't agree with/ have an altetnative view is a public service .. less of the pearl clutching petal.

You have not been paying attention. Weeknight political panel's used to be red,yellow and blue. They are now consistently blue, blue and one other. In this case blue. I am actually asking for alternative views. We currently get very slightly different flavours of the same minority view and it's being presented as the mainstream opinion. It's a lie. Most people don't think the way their panel does.

Incidentally, your attempt at a belittling ad hominem distracts from your argument. If you want people to engage with what you are saying, it may be a good idea not to start by insulting those who have different views. It makes you look like you lack confidence in the strength of your argument, so have to resort to petty name calling.

 

[Triggaaar]

something that shows is everyone is a bit better off, albeit unbalanced. way some of the commentary is framed, we're all losing money except the top bracket. as the upper tax braket is 150k, also shows distribution of the NI increase, it wasnt the regressive tax everyone claimed.

Indeed. Just looking at the graph and it's like WTF, but the reality is that 1p off of the basic rate is no bad thing, and claiming that removing the temporary hike in NI is some deal for the rich is disingenuous because the Torys put it there in the first place and it was only temporary. I would rather the 45% rate stayed because I think the high earners can easily afford it, but to be honest I wouldn't expect a Tory government to have the top rate that high and I'd expect a Labour government to put it back.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Low tax investments like VCTs, EISs, SEISs, ISAs & Pensions which all invest in UK companies, creating additional investment, corporation tax & income tax & NI to the treasury

That is investment in shares not directly in the company. All it will do will create asset inflation.

 

[jackanada]

Low tax investments like VCTs, EISs, SEISs, ISAs & Pensions which all invest in UK companies, creating additional investment, corporation tax & income tax & NI to the treasury

Even if that does happen (over 30 years evidence suggests it doesn't) it pales into insignificance compared to the effects of tax multipliers when you give more money to the poorest.

 

[JamesAndTheGiantHead]

The theory being those on higher incomes will spend their gain going out and buying stuff I guess.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Low tax investments like VCTs, EISs, SEISs, ISAs & Pensions which all invest in UK companies, creating additional investment, corporation tax & income tax & NI to the treasury

And virtually none of it will get to the people that need it - namely the not working, those on low incomes and now, even middle income earners. It's a policy to make the rich richer - nothing more than that.

 

[A1X]

Good old "trickle down economics"...

Trickling down all the way to the Cayman Islands

 

[Steve Foster]

And virtually none of it will get to the people that need it - namely the not working, those on low incomes and now, even middle income earners. It's a policy to make the rich richer - nothing more than that.

There is no magic Money Tree. Those on low incomes will benefit further as & when the UK tax take increases.
The measures that the Chancellor has put in place will benefit the whole population in time.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

There is no magic Money Tree. Those on low incomes will benefit further as & when the UK tax take increases.
The measures that the Chancellor has put in place will benefit the whole population in time.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to take a lesson in 'trickle down' economics from some who's sole purpose is to make wealthy people richer and to avoid paying tax. While tax avoidance isn't illegal you have to question the morality of the people that promote it and those that use it.

 

[Since1982]

There is no magic Money Tree. Those on low incomes will benefit further as & when the UK tax take increases.
The measures that the Chancellor has put in place will benefit the whole population in time.

But clearly there is a magic money tree - the Chancellor has massively increased govt borrowing in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest and to prop up the windfall profits of the energy providers.

 

[sparkie]

Everyone knows that there are enchanted forests of magic money trees when the Government wants them. They just press the quantitative easing button and the mystic saplings sprout.

 

[Weststander]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to take a lesson in 'trickle down' economics from some who's sole purpose is to make wealthy people richer and to avoid paying tax. While tax avoidance isn't illegal you have to question the morality of the people that promote it and those that use it.

IFA’s:
1. Purpose no.1 get very rich yourself, income not dependent on performance.
2. Attempt to build or protect client wealth.

 

[Since1982]

And virtually none of it will get to the people that need it - namely the not working, those on low incomes and now, even middle income earners. It's a policy to make the rich richer - nothing more than that.

And the Resolution Foundation has reported this morning that the net effect of all the recent Tory tax changes is that middle income earners will be paying more.

 

[Stato]

There is no magic Money Tree. Those on low incomes will benefit further as & when the UK tax take increases.
The measures that the Chancellor has put in place will benefit the whole population in time.
View attachment 152159

The UK's tax take has just reduced by £45 billion. As repeated right wing governments have been pushing this ideological nonsense for 40 years now, presumably the benefits for all will be along very very shortly.

 

[A1X]

There is no magic Money Tree. Those on low incomes will benefit further as & when the UK tax take increases.

Cutting taxes does not increase the tax take though. That’s like saying Brighton would score more goals if they never went within 20 yards of the opponents goal. It utterly defies logic.

And before you try and claim it makes rich people more inclined to pay tax, that’s total bollocks which has never happened anywhere. It’s a lie made up by rich people so they don’t get taxed as much and swallowed only by people driven by ideology or stupidity.