| Rachel Reeves 08:21 - Mar 21 with 2710 views | portmanking |
At risk of breaking her own borrowing rules within the space of six months.
Oh for a government with a semblance of financial acumen and honesty.
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. |  | | |  |
| Rachel Reeves on 08:27 - Mar 21 with 2091 views | redrickstuhaart |
If it was dishonest, the government wouldn;t be admitting any of this. It would just plough on and deny it. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 08:29 - Mar 21 with 2070 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 08:27 - Mar 21 by redrickstuhaart |
If it was dishonest, the government wouldn;t be admitting any of this. It would just plough on and deny it. |
They aren't admitting it. It's freely open data from an independent forecaster. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 08:31 - Mar 21 with 2052 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Rachel Reeves on 08:29 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
They aren't admitting it. It's freely open data from an independent forecaster. |
They are.
And they are discussing the reasons too. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:09 - Mar 21 with 1935 views | Guthrum |
A week is a long time in politics, let alone six months.
Quite apart from the fact we're in a not very stable or predictable economic environment at the moment (thanks to Putin, Trump, shortages, inflation, etc.). |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:12 - Mar 21 with 1914 views | Swansea_Blue |
It’s not a risk. It’s a requirement. She needs to break them if we’re going to get much in the way of recovery. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:13 - Mar 21 with 1900 views | Ryorry |
She's unnecessarily, stupidly, painted herself into a corner generally, not just specifically on borrowing. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:18 - Mar 21 with 1865 views | thebooks |
Well, if you will stick to ridiculous borrowing and taxation rules set by outgoing nutcase Tory governments, that’s what will happen.
Still, good to see them trying to stick to these rules by taking money from poor and/or disabled people. Lovely stuff. |  | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:23 - Mar 21 with 1837 views | JammyDodgerrr |
To clarify, isn't she at risk of breaking her own rules in 5 years time, rather than right now? I believe that was the rules set out. It's in part why I don't think she should be making any snap decisions in this statement. That is a long time and we haven't even seen any of her growth bits take effect yet, given the tax year hasn't rolled over. [Post edited 21 Mar 9:23]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rachel Reeves on 09:26 - Mar 21 with 1813 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:23 - Mar 21 by JammyDodgerrr |
To clarify, isn't she at risk of breaking her own rules in 5 years time, rather than right now? I believe that was the rules set out. It's in part why I don't think she should be making any snap decisions in this statement. That is a long time and we haven't even seen any of her growth bits take effect yet, given the tax year hasn't rolled over. [Post edited 21 Mar 9:23]
|
No, the £9.9bn headroom the OBR said she had for spending has already been eroded against her own rules. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:29 - Mar 21 with 1752 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:13 - Mar 21 by Ryorry |
She's unnecessarily, stupidly, painted herself into a corner generally, not just specifically on borrowing. |
Quite.
Instead of hitting the wealth creators with more NICs, they should be incentivising them to employ more and just tax the wealth creators' income more instead.
More jobs. Growing businesses. More money for the Treasury - and working people. [Post edited 21 Mar 9:30]
| | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:37 - Mar 21 with 1711 views | homer_123 |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:29 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
Quite.
Instead of hitting the wealth creators with more NICs, they should be incentivising them to employ more and just tax the wealth creators' income more instead.
More jobs. Growing businesses. More money for the Treasury - and working people. [Post edited 21 Mar 9:30]
|
Ah, trickle down economics..... |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:40 - Mar 21 with 1694 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:37 - Mar 21 by homer_123 |
Ah, trickle down economics..... |
I'm talking about taxing high-net wealth creators considerably more than they are now. Something the Tories or Labour haven't had the balls to do.
Also, if we don't embrace entrepreneurialism, what hope do we have of getting out of this mess whatsoever? | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:43 - Mar 21 with 1669 views | Herbivore |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:29 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
Quite.
Instead of hitting the wealth creators with more NICs, they should be incentivising them to employ more and just tax the wealth creators' income more instead.
More jobs. Growing businesses. More money for the Treasury - and working people. [Post edited 21 Mar 9:30]
|
"Wealth creators" are only interested in creating wealth for themselves, and as a result are very adept at finding ways to minimise their tax burden. The idea that we should ramp up a broken and outdated model of capitalism is for the birds, it can't be the answer to the problems it's helped to create. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:46 - Mar 21 with 1648 views | homer_123 |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:40 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
I'm talking about taxing high-net wealth creators considerably more than they are now. Something the Tories or Labour haven't had the balls to do.
Also, if we don't embrace entrepreneurialism, what hope do we have of getting out of this mess whatsoever? |
The issue with taxing the wealthy is that they have the means and funds to avoid those taxes.
But yes, that would be a start.
The reality is you need the government and businesses to work together. The Government can invest and spend on projects (infrastructure for example), whilst encouraging businesses to grow, invest, expand etc.
Merely 'taxing' the wealthy won't work - in fact, some evidence to suggest that said people withdraw monies/ stop investing etc. as a result.
No easy solution here. That said, the wider geo-political situation means that it's an incredible unstable situation, which isn't helping either. | |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:46 - Mar 21 with 1644 views | homer_123 |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:43 - Mar 21 by Herbivore |
"Wealth creators" are only interested in creating wealth for themselves, and as a result are very adept at finding ways to minimise their tax burden. The idea that we should ramp up a broken and outdated model of capitalism is for the birds, it can't be the answer to the problems it's helped to create. |
Indeed, literally just posted this below:
"The issue with taxing the wealthy is that they have the means and funds to avoid those taxes." | |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:50 - Mar 21 with 1628 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:46 - Mar 21 by homer_123 |
The issue with taxing the wealthy is that they have the means and funds to avoid those taxes.
But yes, that would be a start.
The reality is you need the government and businesses to work together. The Government can invest and spend on projects (infrastructure for example), whilst encouraging businesses to grow, invest, expand etc.
Merely 'taxing' the wealthy won't work - in fact, some evidence to suggest that said people withdraw monies/ stop investing etc. as a result.
No easy solution here. That said, the wider geo-political situation means that it's an incredible unstable situation, which isn't helping either. |
I agree on government and business working together, which is why you need the high-net worth individuals on board. Even taxing the Amazon's of the world 1%-2% would be a start. Let's face it, Amazon wouldn't stop selling to us because of it. We just need someone bold enough to enforce it.
Re. government and business working together - hiking employers' NICs flies in the face of this IMO.
On the subject of wealth creators only being in it for themselves, I think that's an unfair view. While some entrepreneurs would evade tax, many other successful businessmen and women wouldn't bat an eye lid at paying more tax if it meant getting better healthcare and other state provisions. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:54 - Mar 21 with 1602 views | homer_123 |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:50 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
I agree on government and business working together, which is why you need the high-net worth individuals on board. Even taxing the Amazon's of the world 1%-2% would be a start. Let's face it, Amazon wouldn't stop selling to us because of it. We just need someone bold enough to enforce it.
Re. government and business working together - hiking employers' NICs flies in the face of this IMO.
On the subject of wealth creators only being in it for themselves, I think that's an unfair view. While some entrepreneurs would evade tax, many other successful businessmen and women wouldn't bat an eye lid at paying more tax if it meant getting better healthcare and other state provisions. |
The issue lies with the fact that Amazon can operate within the UK and service the UK but setup in such as way as to minimise it's tax obligations. You simply can't 'tax them another 1% to 2%' - it doesn't work that way, sadly.
Yes, some high-net worth business owners might be happy but I suspect they are likely in the minority. | |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:56 - Mar 21 with 1569 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:46 - Mar 21 by homer_123 |
Indeed, literally just posted this below:
"The issue with taxing the wealthy is that they have the means and funds to avoid those taxes." |
Not sure if it still the case but 10 years ago you would have tax specialists from major accountancy firms working on secondment at the Treasury helping to frame tax laws. |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:57 - Mar 21 with 1562 views | itfcjoe |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:50 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
I agree on government and business working together, which is why you need the high-net worth individuals on board. Even taxing the Amazon's of the world 1%-2% would be a start. Let's face it, Amazon wouldn't stop selling to us because of it. We just need someone bold enough to enforce it.
Re. government and business working together - hiking employers' NICs flies in the face of this IMO.
On the subject of wealth creators only being in it for themselves, I think that's an unfair view. While some entrepreneurs would evade tax, many other successful businessmen and women wouldn't bat an eye lid at paying more tax if it meant getting better healthcare and other state provisions. |
But the employers NIC is just getting the same money back that had been cut from employee NICs over the last year or so of the Tory Govt - what was the other option? Just put it back on employees and everyone go mad about tax rises? |  |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 10:14 - Mar 21 with 1519 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:57 - Mar 21 by itfcjoe |
But the employers NIC is just getting the same money back that had been cut from employee NICs over the last year or so of the Tory Govt - what was the other option? Just put it back on employees and everyone go mad about tax rises? |
And the tories were bringing this rise in anyway, same with minimum wage, they only thing that is different is the threshold drop. | |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 10:27 - Mar 21 with 1464 views | DJR |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:57 - Mar 21 by itfcjoe |
But the employers NIC is just getting the same money back that had been cut from employee NICs over the last year or so of the Tory Govt - what was the other option? Just put it back on employees and everyone go mad about tax rises? |
The Tory cut was a reckless and futile attempt to win the election and left the country's finances in a terrible state.
It was not the action of a party which had the nation's interest at heart (especially given IFS warnings about the state of the finances), and could be described as economic vandalism. [Post edited 21 Mar 10:54]
|  | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 10:36 - Mar 21 with 1444 views | portmanking |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:57 - Mar 21 by itfcjoe |
But the employers NIC is just getting the same money back that had been cut from employee NICs over the last year or so of the Tory Govt - what was the other option? Just put it back on employees and everyone go mad about tax rises? |
Frankly, yes. What was stopping them being open and honest that the slashing of employee NICs was reckless and we each needed to pay a little more to get public services on an even keel?
I would've much rather paid £X more a month if it meant businesses were encouraged to hire and invest more in their industries and people. Taxing job creation just seems to be at total odds with their growth mission, whereas reinstating a tax rate on working people could've been communicated better IMO.
Transparency and bold politics appears to have disappeared in the last decade. [Post edited 21 Mar 10:37]
| | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:18 - Mar 21 with 1320 views | OldFart71 |
Just watch growth if you think borrowing is bad it will nosedive. Interest rates are still at 4.5%, Energy prices up, water up, council tax up,Sky up (No surprise there), food prices rising virtually every week. Taxes up due to the personal allowance staying at £12,570 (Admittedly something brought in by Sunak). Reeves telling all departments to make cuts and just watch the amount of jobs available at a time when Labour are saying they want more of those on benefits out working. | | | |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:27 - Mar 21 with 1277 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:40 - Mar 21 by portmanking |
I'm talking about taxing high-net wealth creators considerably more than they are now. Something the Tories or Labour haven't had the balls to do.
Also, if we don't embrace entrepreneurialism, what hope do we have of getting out of this mess whatsoever? |
And bizarrely there is a group of the super rich who actively campaign for higher taxes on their wealth. I can’t remember the exact amount they say a 2% wealth tax would raise, but it’s in the many billions a year. You’d think it would be an open door policy option for the govt., rather than hitting vulnerable pensioners and disable people. But apparently not. | |
| |
| Rachel Reeves on 11:27 - Mar 21 with 1275 views | OldFart71 |
| Rachel Reeves on 09:46 - Mar 21 by homer_123 |
The issue with taxing the wealthy is that they have the means and funds to avoid those taxes.
But yes, that would be a start.
The reality is you need the government and businesses to work together. The Government can invest and spend on projects (infrastructure for example), whilst encouraging businesses to grow, invest, expand etc.
Merely 'taxing' the wealthy won't work - in fact, some evidence to suggest that said people withdraw monies/ stop investing etc. as a result.
No easy solution here. That said, the wider geo-political situation means that it's an incredible unstable situation, which isn't helping either. |
You only have to look at Companies like Dyson they just move production abroad and pay lower taxes. I recently spoke to a builder whose friend has now relocated to Hungary he say's it a bit like Britain in the 80's but he only pays 8% tax. Whatever you do against the rich they will find a way around it and it won't be them that suffer. You only have to take the current situation with regards to the N.I. increase. All it will achieve is higher prices for goods, fewer hours for workers and may even lead to redundancies. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
