| Spring election incoming 13:26 - Nov 22 with 4943 views | Zx1988 |
2% cut in NI contributions being fast-tracked to take effect from January rather than April.
Combine that with small boat crossings having been lower during the winter months and it gives the Tories a good base to play to their core support. [Post edited 22 Nov 2023 13:28]
|  |
| |  |
| Spring election incoming on 13:29 - Nov 22 with 3682 views | DanTheMan |
They need to go beyond their dwindling base though. And most people are sick of them.
It's all well cutting NI but when you're not raising thresholds it's give with one hand and take with the other. |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 13:31 - Nov 22 with 3658 views | hype313 |
| Spring election incoming on 13:29 - Nov 22 by DanTheMan |
They need to go beyond their dwindling base though. And most people are sick of them.
It's all well cutting NI but when you're not raising thresholds it's give with one hand and take with the other. |
Yep, re-arranging the deckchairs.
Bring on an election, the sooner the better. |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 13:34 - Nov 22 with 3641 views | Steve_M |
Inflation means we all pay more tax whilst the government decides to spend less:
|  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 13:39 - Nov 22 with 3617 views | ElderGrizzly |
The small problem is we were all paying 10p more in the pound in taxes overall (on average) compared to 2019.
He just cut that to 8p more.
Smoke and mirrors etc
Plus his 'growth' is actually a downward revision:
2024: growth of 0.7%, down from 1.8% growth forecast in March
2025: growth of 1.4%, down from 2.5% growth forecast in March
2026: growth of 1.9%: down from 2.1% growth forecast in March |  | | |
| Spring election incoming on 13:49 - Nov 22 with 3578 views | DJR |
A bit of cut and paste from Rachel Reeves.
Reeves says, to grow the economy, more people need to be in work.
She says Labour believes that, if people can work, they should work.
It has called for reform of the work capability assessment, she says.
Too many people are out of work because of long-term health isssues, she says. |  | | |
| Spring election incoming on 13:52 - Nov 22 with 3548 views | DJR |
| Spring election incoming on 13:39 - Nov 22 by ElderGrizzly |
The small problem is we were all paying 10p more in the pound in taxes overall (on average) compared to 2019.
He just cut that to 8p more.
Smoke and mirrors etc
Plus his 'growth' is actually a downward revision:
2024: growth of 0.7%, down from 1.8% growth forecast in March
2025: growth of 1.4%, down from 2.5% growth forecast in March
2026: growth of 1.9%: down from 2.1% growth forecast in March |
Rachel Reeves claims on growth that Hunt's plans are a cover version of hers.
But if those are the growth forecasts that's not much to write home about, and bang goes improved public services under Labour, because improvements are dependent on growth. | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 13:55 - Nov 22 with 3518 views | baxterbasics |
Lets see what the polls do, if there's no great shift I think we'll still be kept waiting maximum term for the election. Of course none of this will push the tories close to parity with Labour, all they can hope for is damage limitation. |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 13:55 - Nov 22 with 3520 views | bluelagos |
Not so sure. Surely if they want an autumn election - then this is the last chance for a tax giveaway? Don't see why they go in the spring if still way behind in the polls.
And where they will struggle is that a 2p cut in NI given previous tax rises and cost of living rises - no one is going to be feeling flush - so any feel good factor is a bit of a pipe dream imho |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Spring election incoming on 13:57 - Nov 22 with 3513 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Spring election incoming on 13:52 - Nov 22 by DJR |
Rachel Reeves claims on growth that Hunt's plans are a cover version of hers.
But if those are the growth forecasts that's not much to write home about, and bang goes improved public services under Labour, because improvements are dependent on growth. |
OBR forecasts based on the current Government of course.
And Hunt has spent all of his 'headroom' already according to the OBR:
"The economy has proved more resilient to the shocks of the pandemic and energy crisis than we anticipated. But inflation has also been more persistent and interest rates higher than in March.
Higher inflation boosts tax revenues but also welfare benefits while higher interest rates push up debt servicing. But because departmental spending is left largely unchanged, this delivers a net fiscal windfall of £27 billion"
And Reeves says she wants to cut taxes. Hunt and Sunak have continued to increase the tax-take
| | | |
| Spring election incoming on 13:59 - Nov 22 with 3491 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Spring election incoming on 13:55 - Nov 22 by bluelagos |
Not so sure. Surely if they want an autumn election - then this is the last chance for a tax giveaway? Don't see why they go in the spring if still way behind in the polls.
And where they will struggle is that a 2p cut in NI given previous tax rises and cost of living rises - no one is going to be feeling flush - so any feel good factor is a bit of a pipe dream imho |
Reality doesn't matter. Watch the Mail, GB News etc spin this to be the best ever budget, helping the 'working class' etc.
It's nothing of the sort of course, but they rely on the majority of the voters to not understand that.
Slogans on buses win elections for this lot it appears from past experience | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 14:31 - Nov 22 with 3305 views | baxterbasics |
Something I've long thought - why not be more radical and scrap NI entirely? It isn't ringfenced, just goes into the same pot. So scrapping it and taking more in income tax would surely represent a big administrative saving, no?
Anyone more up on these things know why this would be a bad idea? | |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 14:47 - Nov 22 with 3263 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Spring election incoming on 13:52 - Nov 22 by DJR |
Rachel Reeves claims on growth that Hunt's plans are a cover version of hers.
But if those are the growth forecasts that's not much to write home about, and bang goes improved public services under Labour, because improvements are dependent on growth. |
Any improvements will have to come from tax rises, the global economic outlook is not great in the forthcoming year. China is still struggling with its property crisis and exodus of western FDI. The UK government’s comments around disinflation are far too bullish in my opinion, and don’t reflect the messages coming from the Fed. The budget is just fiddling around the edges, it does on the face of it appear to be electioneering.
https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/world-growth-outlook-for-2024-d | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 15:09 - Nov 22 with 3200 views | DJR |
| Spring election incoming on 14:31 - Nov 22 by baxterbasics |
Something I've long thought - why not be more radical and scrap NI entirely? It isn't ringfenced, just goes into the same pot. So scrapping it and taking more in income tax would surely represent a big administrative saving, no?
Anyone more up on these things know why this would be a bad idea? |
In terms of tax simplification, it would be a good idea but for those who benefit, NI has two advantages, namely, it is capped for high earners and it is not paid on pension income.
The latter, in particular. means I don't think it will ever be replaced. [Post edited 22 Nov 2023 16:03]
| | | |
| Spring election incoming on 15:12 - Nov 22 with 3174 views | DanTheMan |
Oopsy. | |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 15:13 - Nov 22 with 3164 views | bluelagos |
| Spring election incoming on 14:31 - Nov 22 by baxterbasics |
Something I've long thought - why not be more radical and scrap NI entirely? It isn't ringfenced, just goes into the same pot. So scrapping it and taking more in income tax would surely represent a big administrative saving, no?
Anyone more up on these things know why this would be a bad idea? |
Pensioners don't pay NI. So you'd be hitting them with an additional tax and that would cost a fair amount of votes.
So not going to happen. | |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 15:18 - Nov 22 with 3132 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Spring election incoming on 15:12 - Nov 22 by DanTheMan |
Oopsy. |
Was it Burnley? | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 15:19 - Nov 22 with 3119 views | SmithersJones |
| Spring election incoming on 14:31 - Nov 22 by baxterbasics |
Something I've long thought - why not be more radical and scrap NI entirely? It isn't ringfenced, just goes into the same pot. So scrapping it and taking more in income tax would surely represent a big administrative saving, no?
Anyone more up on these things know why this would be a bad idea? |
It would certainly be a good idea and easier to administer. But any big change involves winners and losers, and political parties (especially approaching an election) don't want people to think they pay more tax as a result of a change (which is not the same as actually paying more). In the case of NI there are a couple of things which make it electorally difficult to change:
(a) employee NI (as a percentage of earnings) reduces with earnings whereas income tax increases, so if they simply increased income tax a lot of higher earners would pay more
(b) employers also pay NI, so scrapping NI would mean either that employees pay the bit their employer paid previously, or a totally new "tax on jobs" would need to be invented.
Whether these reasons justify continuing with separate tax and NI is of course open to debate, but I suspect like many things (health service, social care etc) it's easier to kick the can down the road. | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 15:20 - Nov 22 with 3099 views | nodge_blue |
Andrew Marr thought they will go full term after the appointment of Cameron to FS. He thought Cameron wouldn't have agreed to come back if election about to be called. |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 15:24 - Nov 22 with 3072 views | DJR |
It's all a sleight of hand at the expense of public services, leaving problems until after the election.
Jeremy Hunt’s controversial decision not to announce any major departmental spending increases to reflect higher inflation has given him the firepower for today’s tax cuts, the Office for Budget Responsibility shows.
The head of the OBR, Richard Hughes, has explained to reporters that Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) make up 40% of public spending.
They are set periodically, and the next review is not until after the general election.
This means that for the years beyond 2024-25, the Treasury has simply told the OBR that departmental spending will rise by £5bn per year.
That, Hughes explains, means that departmental real spending power has been eroded by £19bn compared with the March forecast.
Speaking at a press conference now, Hughes says:
The eagle-eyed amongst you will recognise that is roughly equal to the amount the chancellor spent on the two big tax cuts in this fiscal event.
Had he sought to preserve the real spending power of public services, in the face of higher inflation over the next five years, that would have left him with relatively little to spend on other measures. [Post edited 22 Nov 2023 15:30]
| | | |
| Spring election incoming on 15:28 - Nov 22 with 3059 views | wkj |
2% off NI yet people being dragged into a higher bracket. This is smoke and mirrors for the unwitting |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 15:30 - Nov 22 with 3045 views | bluelagos |
| Spring election incoming on 15:12 - Nov 22 by DanTheMan |
Oopsy. |
If as reported it is Cleverly who called it a sh1thole is rather ironic given he represents Braintree. | |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 15:56 - Nov 22 with 2984 views | Sikamikanico |
| Spring election incoming on 14:31 - Nov 22 by baxterbasics |
Something I've long thought - why not be more radical and scrap NI entirely? It isn't ringfenced, just goes into the same pot. So scrapping it and taking more in income tax would surely represent a big administrative saving, no?
Anyone more up on these things know why this would be a bad idea? |
Because NI is effectively a tax on earned income (employment, self-employment) scrapping it and raising income tax would adversely affect people you receive pension income, rental income, dividends, interest. | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 16:03 - Nov 22 with 2958 views | giant_stow |
| Spring election incoming on 15:56 - Nov 22 by Sikamikanico |
Because NI is effectively a tax on earned income (employment, self-employment) scrapping it and raising income tax would adversely affect people you receive pension income, rental income, dividends, interest. |
Shifting tax away from earned income to those others sounds like a good idea to me.
I've got another one that I heard on the radio the other day: if Google, Facebook etc manage their accounts to only pay corporation tax on 50% (for the sake of argument) of their UK takings, why not bump up their VAT rate to compensate so that they have no choice but to pay 100%? |  |
| |
| Spring election incoming on 16:15 - Nov 22 with 2885 views | Sikamikanico |
| Spring election incoming on 16:03 - Nov 22 by giant_stow |
Shifting tax away from earned income to those others sounds like a good idea to me.
I've got another one that I heard on the radio the other day: if Google, Facebook etc manage their accounts to only pay corporation tax on 50% (for the sake of argument) of their UK takings, why not bump up their VAT rate to compensate so that they have no choice but to pay 100%? |
I'm not saying its not a good idea, just that you would be targeting a group of people who would predominantly be Tory voters.
The 2nd point is impossible to administer. VAT is an additional amount added to the sales price paid by the customer. So an item that you buy for £100 from a VAT Registered business is c£83 VAT and £17 VAT.
Facebook and Google would not reduce their base price and the very tenet of VAT is that its business neutral so if Facebook have to charge 100% VAT then the business customers would be able to reclaim the 100% VAT. The only losers would be the non-VAT registered customers | | | |
| Spring election incoming on 16:23 - Nov 22 with 2862 views | giant_stow |
| Spring election incoming on 16:15 - Nov 22 by Sikamikanico |
I'm not saying its not a good idea, just that you would be targeting a group of people who would predominantly be Tory voters.
The 2nd point is impossible to administer. VAT is an additional amount added to the sales price paid by the customer. So an item that you buy for £100 from a VAT Registered business is c£83 VAT and £17 VAT.
Facebook and Google would not reduce their base price and the very tenet of VAT is that its business neutral so if Facebook have to charge 100% VAT then the business customers would be able to reclaim the 100% VAT. The only losers would be the non-VAT registered customers |
Thanks for the explanations. I had a feeling the VAT thing sounded too good to be true, but think I may have also explained the chap's idea badly. It was just a caller to the Ian Dale show (on Monday night if anyone else heard it) so maybe he was a plonker and me to gullible. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
