You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Tax Cuts

EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
This new unelected Government is already setting out its stall.

To steal from the poor. To give to the rich.

Let's look at the BBC's take. And then add a few bits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63012345

That would be bad enough. But let's add a few bits.

1. You can see from the article that someone earning £20,000 p.a will receive an extra £167 p.a. Just over £3 per week. Or an extra 0.8% of their wages. Someone on £200,000 p.a? Just over £100 per week. Keeping an extra 2.6% of their wages. Fair for all? Don't make me laugh.

2. It ignores the fact that the poorest already pay no tax. Millions of people, from pensioners to Minimum Wage, to people on Benefits, the Part-Time, most people unable to work through ill-health.

It is not "fair to all". It is getting the very poorest in our Society to give money to the very richest.

First move to sort out wage inequality? Uncap Bankers Bonuses. Because they are the ones we need to be looking after. Obviously. Not the poor. The sick. The people who do vital jobs-like helping the poor and the sick.

Vote this scum out. At the earliest opportunity.

The first principle of taxation always has been, and always should be, this.

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
«134

Comments

  • rabdenirorabdeniro Member Posts: 4,212
    The rich feeding the rich, it's scandalous.
  • TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,075
    The real insult is that when they are ousted at the ballot box, the next Government is left holding the can for the chaos that we will be in whilst Trusses Tossers will all be smug and glib from the opposition benches.

    Liz Truss is going to make Thatcher look like Florence Nightingale before she's through.
    Any leader who calls benefits, handouts, has no idea of life on the poverty line, and insisting that claimants seek better paid work etc is a joke.

    An unrealistic minimum wage coupled with zero hours contracts, try addressing those issues if you want a healthy labour market you stupid woman.

    Kwasi has just committed fiscal suicide, the big problem is he handcuffed us to him before he jumped.
  • dragon1964dragon1964 Member Posts: 3,051
    Just when you think they can't get any worse, they manage to stoop even lower.
    I would like to say I'm surprised but I'm really not.

    Possible reasons?

    1. They really believe this is the best way forward for the economy and the trickle down effect will work.
    2. They are just hoping that their wealthy friends will be grateful enough to make big donations before the next election and keep them in power.
    3. The working class will only focus on their own meagre benefit and be grateful without noticing the rich got far more.
    4. They just don't care about the less well off because they are callous evil tw*ts.


    I'm going for 2,3,4.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Essexphil said:

    This new unelected Government is already setting out its stall.

    To steal from the poor. To give to the rich.

    Let's look at the BBC's take. And then add a few bits.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63012345

    That would be bad enough. But let's add a few bits.

    1. You can see from the article that someone earning £20,000 p.a will receive an extra £167 p.a. Just over £3 per week. Or an extra 0.8% of their wages. Someone on £200,000 p.a? Just over £100 per week. Keeping an extra 2.6% of their wages. Fair for all? Don't make me laugh.

    Is this figure correct?
    I thought the tax free personal allowance was £12,570.
    I can get a bit more due to my wifes lack of earnings.
    If you deduct the personal allowance from the 20k, it leaves just short of 7.5k.
    Therefore a 1% reduction would leave you £75 better off.
    Almost £1.50 per week.
    Wow.
    Not even a bag of chips.





    3. It ignores the fact that the poorest already pay no tax. Millions of people, from pensioners to Minimum Wage, to people on Benefits, the Part-Time, most people unable to work through ill-health.

    It is not "fair to all". It is getting the very poorest in our Society to give money to the very richest.

    First move to sort out wage inequality? Uncap Bankers Bonuses. Because they are the ones we need to be looking after. Obviously. Not the poor. The sick. The people who do vital jobs-like helping the poor and the sick.

    Vote this scum out. At the earliest opportunity.

    The first principle of taxation always has been, and always should be, this.

    "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    This new unelected Government is already setting out its stall.

    To steal from the poor. To give to the rich.

    Let's look at the BBC's take. And then add a few bits.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63012345

    That would be bad enough. But let's add a few bits.

    1. You can see from the article that someone earning £20,000 p.a will receive an extra £167 p.a. Just over £3 per week. Or an extra 0.8% of their wages. Someone on £200,000 p.a? Just over £100 per week. Keeping an extra 2.6% of their wages. Fair for all? Don't make me laugh.

    Is this figure correct?
    I thought the tax free personal allowance was £12,570.
    I can get a bit more due to my wifes lack of earnings.
    If you deduct the personal allowance from the 20k, it leaves just short of 7.5k.
    Therefore a 1% reduction would leave you £75 better off.
    Almost £1.50 per week.
    Wow.
    Not even a bag of chips.





    3. It ignores the fact that the poorest already pay no tax. Millions of people, from pensioners to Minimum Wage, to people on Benefits, the Part-Time, most people unable to work through ill-health.

    It is not "fair to all". It is getting the very poorest in our Society to give money to the very richest.

    First move to sort out wage inequality? Uncap Bankers Bonuses. Because they are the ones we need to be looking after. Obviously. Not the poor. The sick. The people who do vital jobs-like helping the poor and the sick.

    Vote this scum out. At the earliest opportunity.

    The first principle of taxation always has been, and always should be, this.

    "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

    Maybe the BBC are including the NI increase that was recently brought in, and now scrapped.
    If so that is not really fair.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    This new unelected Government is already setting out its stall.

    To steal from the poor. To give to the rich.

    Let's look at the BBC's take. And then add a few bits.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63012345

    That would be bad enough. But let's add a few bits.

    1. You can see from the article that someone earning £20,000 p.a will receive an extra £167 p.a. Just over £3 per week. Or an extra 0.8% of their wages. Someone on £200,000 p.a? Just over £100 per week. Keeping an extra 2.6% of their wages. Fair for all? Don't make me laugh.

    Is this figure correct?
    I thought the tax free personal allowance was £12,570.
    I can get a bit more due to my wifes lack of earnings.
    If you deduct the personal allowance from the 20k, it leaves just short of 7.5k.
    Therefore a 1% reduction would leave you £75 better off.
    Almost £1.50 per week.
    Wow.
    Not even a bag of chips.





    3. It ignores the fact that the poorest already pay no tax. Millions of people, from pensioners to Minimum Wage, to people on Benefits, the Part-Time, most people unable to work through ill-health.

    It is not "fair to all". It is getting the very poorest in our Society to give money to the very richest.

    First move to sort out wage inequality? Uncap Bankers Bonuses. Because they are the ones we need to be looking after. Obviously. Not the poor. The sick. The people who do vital jobs-like helping the poor and the sick.

    Vote this scum out. At the earliest opportunity.

    The first principle of taxation always has been, and always should be, this.

    "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

    Maybe the BBC are including the NI increase that was recently brought in, and now scrapped.
    If so that is not really fair.
    They have.
    So the majority of the £167 in savings is represented by the NI increase which people have been paying since April.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    HAYSIE said:

    Essexphil said:

    This new unelected Government is already setting out its stall.

    To steal from the poor. To give to the rich.

    Let's look at the BBC's take. And then add a few bits.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63012345

    That would be bad enough. But let's add a few bits.

    1. You can see from the article that someone earning £20,000 p.a will receive an extra £167 p.a. Just over £3 per week. Or an extra 0.8% of their wages. Someone on £200,000 p.a? Just over £100 per week. Keeping an extra 2.6% of their wages. Fair for all? Don't make me laugh.

    Is this figure correct?
    I thought the tax free personal allowance was £12,570.
    I can get a bit more due to my wifes lack of earnings.
    If you deduct the personal allowance from the 20k, it leaves just short of 7.5k.
    Therefore a 1% reduction would leave you £75 better off.
    Almost £1.50 per week.
    Wow.
    Not even a bag of chips.





    3. It ignores the fact that the poorest already pay no tax. Millions of people, from pensioners to Minimum Wage, to people on Benefits, the Part-Time, most people unable to work through ill-health.

    It is not "fair to all". It is getting the very poorest in our Society to give money to the very richest.

    First move to sort out wage inequality? Uncap Bankers Bonuses. Because they are the ones we need to be looking after. Obviously. Not the poor. The sick. The people who do vital jobs-like helping the poor and the sick.

    Vote this scum out. At the earliest opportunity.

    The first principle of taxation always has been, and always should be, this.

    "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

    Maybe the BBC are including the NI increase that was recently brought in, and now scrapped.
    If so that is not really fair.
    They have.
    So the majority of the £167 in savings is represented by the NI increase which people have been paying since April.
    I will rephrase then.
    The 1% reduction in the basic rate of tax will make someone earning 20k per annum almost £75 a year better off than they were in March.
  • EnutEnut Member Posts: 3,269
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 158,810

    On a more serious note, anyone here familiar with IR35? After being off/on/delayed for the last 3 years, it's being scrapped as & from next April.

    For me, the on/off of IR35 is a complete nightmare. I've just re-organised everything to comply with being "inside" IR35 & now it's all changing again.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    edited September 2022
    The top rate of effective Income Tax is being reduced. Depending on how you count it (as there are other taxes based purely on income which are income taxes by another name) it is being reduced from 45% to 40% or 47% to 42%. This will be of enormous benefit. To all those people earning in excess of £150,000 per annum.

    Our top rate of tax was already considerably lower than comparable countries in Europe. France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, Portugal, Scandinavia, Ireland. Which is, of course, why Russian oligarchs come to live in Moscow-on-Thames. Even before you remember all those nice rules which allow people to claim they are Non-Doms while living here.

    The people who really need help are not people earning over £150,000 a year-the top 5% of earners are getting more than 50% of the total money.

    It is not people who want to buy their first house without paying Stamp Duty. Because the vast majority of those first-time buyers to benefit will live in London, Surrey and other property hotspots. First-time buyers in normal places were not paying Stamp Duty before.

    Where is the evidence that if you give rich people more money everything works to everyone's benefit? It has never, ever worked. Anywhere. Rich people can afford to save. Can afford to move money offshore. The proportion of extra money that is actually spent is lower than every other income bracket.

    Help for those not paying tax? £0. Help for those living in HMOs or paying rent? £0. To paraphrase Robin Hood as lampooned by the Two Ronnies:-

    "She taxed from the poor
    To give to the rich.
    Silly B1 tch"
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Essexphil said:

    The top rate of effective Income Tax is being reduced. Depending on how you count it (as there are other taxes based purely on income which are income taxes by another name) it is being reduced from 45% to 40% or 47% to 42%. This will be of enormous benefit. To all those people earning in excess of £150,000 per annum.

    Our top rate of tax was already considerably lower than comparable countries in Europe. France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, Portugal, Scandinavia, Ireland. Which is, of course, why Russian oligarchs come to live in Moscow-on-Thames. Even before you remember all those nice rules which allow people to claim they are Non-Doms while living here.

    The people who really need help are not people earning over £150,000 a year-the top 5% of earners are getting more than 50% of the total money.

    It is not people who want to buy their first house without paying Stamp Duty. Because the vast majority of those first-time buyers to benefit will live in London, Surrey and other property hotspots. First-time buyers in normal places were not paying Stamp Duty before.

    Where is the evidence that if you give rich people more money everything works to everyone's benefit? It has never, ever worked. Anywhere. Rich people can afford to save. Can afford to move money offshore. The proportion of extra money that is actually spent is lower than every other income bracket.

    Help for those not paying tax? £0. Help for those living in HMOs or paying rent? £0. To paraphrase Robin Hood as lampooned by the Two Ronnies:-

    "She taxed from the poor
    To give to the rich.
    Silly B1 tch"

    This is a gift for Labour, lets hope they make the most of it.

    Another point is that those that benefit the most will probably not notice that they are better off.

    Middle earners will be drastically worse off.
    They will have made a slight gain through the reduction in the basic rate.
    This paltry gain will be obliterated by increases in energy bills, inflation, petrol costs, and mortgage increases.
    I saw a report regarding mortgage rate increases, which suggested that rates will increase to 4.25% fairly soon.
    At this point the average mortgage will have increased by over £600 per month, since December.
    Mortgage rate increases will surely prove more of a stumbling block to first time buyers, and make adjustments to stamp duty irrelevant.

    I have great sympathy for anyone that has a mortgage.

    Someone earning a million quid per year will be 55k better off, equivalent to 53 years of the universal credit uplift that they took back.

    So nobody besides the rich will benefit at all, and they probably wont notice.
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,615
    Well , i come in this world with nowt and i'm gonna leave with nowt and i worked my ar$e off for the privilege
  • TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,075
    stokefc said:

    Well , i come in this world with nowt and i'm gonna leave with nowt and i worked my ar$e off for the privilege

    Never mind buddy, to paraphrase Del Boy.

    "One day, we are gonna inherit the earth".
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    edited September 2022
    Essexphil said:

    The top rate of effective Income Tax is being reduced. Depending on how you count it (as there are other taxes based purely on income which are income taxes by another name) it is being reduced from 45% to 40% or 47% to 42%. This will be of enormous benefit. To all those people earning in excess of £150,000 per annum.

    Our top rate of tax was already considerably lower than comparable countries in Europe. France, Germany, Italy, Benelux, Portugal, Scandinavia, Ireland. Which is, of course, why Russian oligarchs come to live in Moscow-on-Thames. Even before you remember all those nice rules which allow people to claim they are Non-Doms while living here.

    The people who really need help are not people earning over £150,000 a year-the top 5% of earners are getting more than 50% of the total money.

    It is not people who want to buy their first house without paying Stamp Duty. Because the vast majority of those first-time buyers to benefit will live in London, Surrey and other property hotspots. First-time buyers in normal places were not paying Stamp Duty before.

    Three lenders stopped offering new mortgages today, Halifax, Virgin Money, and Skipton.
    So you get the benefit of the stamp duty changes, but no first time buyers will be able to get a mortgage in a minute.
    Those that can probably wont be able to afford them in a couple of months




    Where is the evidence that if you give rich people more money everything works to everyone's benefit? It has never, ever worked. Anywhere. Rich people can afford to save. Can afford to move money offshore. The proportion of extra money that is actually spent is lower than every other income bracket.

    Help for those not paying tax? £0. Help for those living in HMOs or paying rent? £0. To paraphrase Robin Hood as lampooned by the Two Ronnies:-

    "She taxed from the poor
    To give to the rich.
    Silly B1 tch"

    The £ lost ground against the rouble.
  • TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,075
    The Pound has lost value against the Matabele Gumbo Bead, The Olde English Groat and the Escudo.

    Barter is now a recognised trading currency and all criminal activity will now take place in Euros FFS.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Mortgage payments to surge by almost £10,000 a year if interest rates hit 6pc



    Neal Hudson, analyst at BuiltPlace, estimates that around 375,000 people will roll off a fix in the second quarter of next year, when markets think the base rate will hit 6pc.

    Someone who bought in the first half of 2021 – and so whose two-year fix expires next year, when the base rate could be 6pc – will see their monthly repayments jump from below £900 to £1,696, or £800. This amounts to £9,600 a year more.

    It might not feel like it to house buyers straining every financial sinew to get on the property ladder in recent months, but in retrospect, they may see recent years as the glory days of home ownership.



    https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mortgage-payments-surge-almost-10-153049528.html
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    edited September 2022
    HAYSIE said:

    Mortgage payments to surge by almost £10,000 a year if interest rates hit 6pc



    Neal Hudson, analyst at BuiltPlace, estimates that around 375,000 people will roll off a fix in the second quarter of next year, when markets think the base rate will hit 6pc.

    Someone who bought in the first half of 2021 – and so whose two-year fix expires next year, when the base rate could be 6pc – will see their monthly repayments jump from below £900 to £1,696, or £800. This amounts to £9,600 a year more.

    It might not feel like it to house buyers straining every financial sinew to get on the property ladder in recent months, but in retrospect, they may see recent years as the glory days of home ownership.



    https://uk.yahoo.com/news/mortgage-payments-surge-almost-10-153049528.html

    Exactly this.

    When lenders like the Halifax pause lending to new customers, it is not because of "uncertainty".

    It is because they are pretty sure they can put their prices up.

    Here's why I detest Banks. Quick to put Rates up for Borrowers. Really, really slow to put Rates up for Savers.

    Current Rates for Savers? 0.45% once had money with them for a year on instant access, and 1.5% for a 1-year fix, 1.6% for a 2-year.

    Compare/contrast with the return on lending out savers' money on credit cards/mortgages, while simultaneously replacing Branches with Call Centres to save even more money...
  • EnutEnut Member Posts: 3,269
    And don't forget @Essexphil, once customers get in real financial difficulty they will have a range of high interest consolidation loans and overdrafts they can use to 'help them out'. Thus making sure they get heavier and heavier into debt.

    The FCA is introducing a new Consumer Duty Plan next year, with new rules to, in theory, stop clients being ripped off by high charges and fees. You have to ask what the **** has the regulator been doing for the last 20 years?
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 7,958
    Enut said:

    And don't forget @Essexphil, once customers get in real financial difficulty they will have a range of high interest consolidation loans and overdrafts they can use to 'help them out'. Thus making sure they get heavier and heavier into debt.

    The FCA is introducing a new Consumer Duty Plan next year, with new rules to, in theory, stop clients being ripped off by high charges and fees. You have to ask what the **** has the regulator been doing for the last 20 years?

    The original specialist Ombudsmen-Banking, Insurance, et al, were very good. Of a size where they could be able, proactive, and be fiercely independent. Similarly, the various organisations that morphed into the FSA were far more targeted and focussed than the FSA, which in turn was far better than the FCA and (God help us) the PRA.

    There was a time when the Staff at the various Ombudsmen were well-paid professionals, who tended to have experience on both the Business and Consumer side of things. They were (sadly) replaced by Adjudicators working in Canary Wharf on Salaries that no self-respecting PA would work for. And the whole system imploded into a box-ticking exercise. That benefits no-one. Not business, and not Consumers.

    So-we get all sorts of Regulations supposedly to stop people getting Mortgages. And next to nothing stopping Payday loans or Credit Card debt. At least, in relation to those who actually need the protection.

    The FCA is full of blue sky thinkers. Who would not last 5 minutes in the real world.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 31,519
    Pound will be worth less than one euro, warns former US Treasury chief - live updates


    https://uk.yahoo.com/news/bank-england-not-hesitate-raise-044045022.html
Sign In or Register to comment.