Todays budget

[Mungler]

9 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I imagine that’s why they voted for Truss. 

Tactical move knowing she will be one and done? 
 

I really think the Tories have misjudged the current situation. 
 

They initially floated the idea of raising the 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, would of got a lot more support for that. 

 

 

So, 40% of the national income tax take comes from the city of London.

More than 25% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers, and 90% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers.

If Truss is trying to attract more City types into London then that’s got to be a good thing, because they are putting the petrol in the engine.

I doubt very much that Truss was going out of her way to make bankers richer despite what the rabid green eyed left leaning press will make out. What’s she’s done is a big gamble sure enough especially with inflationary pressures.

it’s either a decade of awful recession / depression or her Plan A for growth, lower taxes and smaller government and right now, I’ll take anything other than more of the same we’ve had for the last decades.

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

 

So, 40% of the national income tax take comes from the city of London.

More than 25% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers, and 90% of all income tax revenue is paid by the top 50% of taxpayers.

If Truss is trying to attract more City types into London then that’s got to be a good thing, because they are putting the petrol in the engine.

I doubt very much that Truss was going out of her way to make bankers richer despite what the rabid green eyed left leaning press will make out. What’s she’s done is a big gamble sure enough especially with inflationary pressures.

it’s either a decade of awful recession / depression or her Plan A for growth, lower taxes and smaller government and right now, I’ll take anything other than more of the same we’ve had for the last decades.

Problem is all those not earning the big money won't take any of that on board,  they'll listen to labour saying we'll save you money and go for it.

[Mungler]

35 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Problem is all those not earning the big money won't take any of that on board,  they'll listen to labour saying we'll save you money and go for it.

It was in the press that Truss has another wider ranging tax cut coming and no doubt just before the next election. You’re right in what you say, and the next play should be to cut tax again because that leaves Labour confirming that if they win they’re putting up taxes.

 

[garjo]

Pound has reached all time low for 50 years, talk of an emergency BoE meeting to raise interest rates; three days in from Kwartengs budget - it all seems to going smoothly. 

[Mice!]

9 hours ago, Mungler said:

It was in the press that Truss has another wider ranging tax cut coming and no doubt just before the next election. You’re right in what you say, and the next play should be to cut tax again because that leaves Labour confirming that if they win they’re putting up taxes.

 

Those likely to swing to labour probably won't be looking in the press about the budget,  they'll just know all their bills, food, fuel have gone up and blame the Tories,  I'll happily admit I didn't realise there had been a budget till I saw this thread.

The next election should be a while off yet, so a token tax cut nearer the time will probably be too little too late.

[Mungler]

38 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Those likely to swing to labour probably won't be looking in the press about the budget,  they'll just know all their bills, food, fuel have gone up and blame the Tories,  I'll happily admit I didn't realise there had been a budget till I saw this thread.

The next election should be a while off yet, so a token tax cut nearer the time will probably be too little too late.

Weird what’s going on and with the economy at full employment.

Mind you, it’s all presentation - the dollar is strong across the world and is now at parity with the Euro but the headlines don’t lead with that. 

[Deker]

Something I saw on FB describing the tax update (and why the cap on bankers earnings is lifted):

Something to think about. I think it applies in Scotland although slight difference in rates.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[Jaymo]

38 minutes ago, Deker said:

Something I saw on FB describing the tax update (and why the cap on bankers earnings is lifted):

Something to think about. I think it applies in Scotland although slight difference in rates.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Have seen this before and of course it still applies. 
But even when shown this or explained in simple ‘Janet and John two apple principles’ , that the majority just don’t seem to comprehend it and continue to bitch n moan. 
 

I see that from the Labour Party conference that the twisting of facts has been at the fore. 
 

[Yellow Bear]

7 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

I see that from the Labour Party conference that the twisting of facts has been at the fore.

Yes Captain Hindsight at his best.

[Mice!]

55 minutes ago, Deker said:

Something I saw on FB describing the tax update (and why the cap on bankers earnings is lifted):

Something to think about. I think it applies in Scotland although slight difference in rates.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED - USING A BEER ANALOGY

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　

Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Very good, clear and easy to understand. 

[Hicky]

I couldn’t care less what bankers etc are paid, I do care about tax avoidance in any sector. Especially when the is told we’re in it together claptrap. We as a country have a basic safety net along with a health service for us all, we all could need it at some/any point. To avoid paying the share deemed appropriate by whoever is in power is immoral. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Hicky

[Jaymo]

Just now, Hicky said:

I couldn’t care less what bankers etc are paid, I do care about tax avoidance in any sector. Especially when the is told we’re in it together claptrap.

Where in the latest budget has an avenue for tax avoidance been opened up? 

[enfieldspares]

Quote

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

Overseas where?

[Cosmicblue]

I read the 'bankers' part of the budget as an incentive to stay in the UK as the financial services industry had been moving to countries that have remained in the EU.

[Deker]

6 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Overseas where?

Anywhere that their services will be rewarded with a better financial package (or at least less caps and tax). 

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Deker said:

Anywhere that their services will be rewarded with a better financial package (or at least less caps and tax). 

Yes. But where then is that? Which specific countries exactly? 

[Deker]

4 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Yes. But where then is that? Which specific countries exactly? 

I'm not a banker but a simple google search suggests there are 5 countries ahead of the UK

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/top-10-financial-career-cities.asp

But this isn't just bankers, it's all industries, I've already started my visa application path to the USA as IT jobs offer more there too.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Deker

[oowee]

31 minutes ago, Deker said:

I'm not a banker but a simple google search suggests there are 5 countries ahead of the UK

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/top-10-financial-career-cities.asp

But this isn't just bankers, it's all industries, I've already started my visa application path to the USA as IT jobs offer more there too.

I can see the driver to get out but I would choose somewhere with a bit more ..... shall we say culture?  

[discobob]

43 minutes ago, Deker said:

I've already started my visa application path to the USA as IT jobs offer more there too.

I would do as well - just a bit too old for it now as I have hit double nickel age. Maybe not the USA - but definitely somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile, I do argue on a flat rate of Tax - maybe including corporation tax.

Excluding "allowances" for simplification

Bill earns 10k and is taxed at 20% = £2000

Alan earns 20k and is taxed at 20% = £4000

Anne earns 100k and is taxed at 20% = £20,000

People who earn more pay more - Anne pays £18k more than Bill in taxes and more than likely contributes a lot more into the economy than Bill

[enfieldspares]

I think people should be taxed less. Far less. My father paid tax in the UK at 19s 6d in the £1. That's 97.5% so for every £1 he got to keep 6d. Or it today's decimal currency that 2 1/2 pence.

But this talk of an exodus is usually bluff or, in any case, if A or B leaves then C or D who likely have been doing the same job of less salary and perks step up.

The same argument I use against conscientious objectors in war. It's like crewing a tank in or flying a bomber. If A doesn't turn up they don't set off one man short. They find someone else. Not A or not you but someone else.

Hong Kong I think there's few would want to work there given that it is now China in control and the two American destinations? If Fred the Shred were to have done in the USA what he did in the UK he'd be in jail. Bankers are well aware that punishment in the UK is not even the same scale as in the USA.

That leaves Germany. I did enough visits to Germany to say that although individually a nice people, that the standard of living is high and that when a German tells you he'll do something he does. It's not for me to ever want to live there permanently.

Yes. People should pay less tax and less of NI that is tax by another name. But that would require root and branch dismantling of the NHS and its replacement with a better system. I've no problem with that. But is is t such a "sacred cow" that it won't ever happen so the tax we need can't much be lowered. I wish that it could!

[Deker]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

I can see the driver to get out but I would choose somewhere with a bit more ..... shall we say culture?  

I'm not a cultured person... more of a British redneck so I'll fit right in 

[Rem260]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

I think people should be taxed less. Far less. My father paid tax in the UK at 19s 6d in the £1. That's 97.5% so for every £1 he got to keep 6d. Or it today's decimal currency that 2 1/2 pence.

But this talk of an exodus is usually bluff or, in any case, if A or B leaves then C or D who likely have been doing the same job of less salary and perks step up.

The same argument I use against conscientious objectors in war. It's like crewing a tank in or flying a bomber. If A doesn't turn up they don't set off one man short. They find someone else. Not A or not you but someone else.

Hong Kong I think there's few would want to work there given that it is now China in control and the two American destinations? If Fred the Shred were to have done in the USA what he did in the UK he'd be in jail. Bankers are well aware that punishment in the UK is not even the same scale as in the USA.

That leaves Germany. I did enough visits to Germany to say that although individually a nice people, that the standard of living is high and that when a German tells you he'll do something he does. It's not for me to ever want to live there permanently.

Yes. People should pay less tax and less of NI that is tax by another name. But that would require root and branch dismantling of the NHS and its replacement with a better system. I've no problem with that. But is is t such a "sacred cow" that it won't ever happen so the tax we need can't much be lowered. I wish that it could!

Could you please explain what you mean by the highlighted sentence.

 

[Raja Clavata]

There is no point, or at least little point, being personally better off if it leads to impoverished public infrastructure and services. Funding private health is one thing but nobody gets to drive anywhere useful on private roads, for example.

[oowee]

3 hours ago, discobob said:

I would do as well - just a bit too old for it now as I have hit double nickel age. Maybe not the USA - but definitely somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile, I do argue on a flat rate of Tax - maybe including corporation tax.

Excluding "allowances" for simplification

Bill earns 10k and is taxed at 20% = £2000

Alan earns 20k and is taxed at 20% = £4000

Anne earns 100k and is taxed at 20% = £20,000

People who earn more pay more - Anne pays £18k more than Bill in taxes and more than likely contributes a lot more into the economy than Bill

If only. The current rate of marginal tax between £100000 and £115000 is 95 %. It's about time the whole system was overhauled. 

[Newbie to this]

26 minutes ago, oowee said:

It's about time the whole system was overhauled. 

On this we can agree