Chomper Higgot

I don’t think it a good idea to formulate national policies punitive to the poor based on what somebody else brags about on line. But of course opinions differ.

All we’ve seen so far is a desire to funnel borrowed money to the already wealthy.

I have no idea. Tell is how many. Or is this another of your baseless assumptions?

After over a decade of Tory austerity it’s difficult to claim people have been treated with ‘Kid Gloves’. But of course you need simple answers to address the complex problems faced by people you openly denigrate. Twelve years of Tory ‘tough love’ hasn’t solved anything, two more years of doubling down on failed policies will deliver nothing but more of the same failure.

Halting the civil case will put an end to the disclosure of his actions during the earlier bid and subsequent Musk antics. I suspect he’s trying to avoid criminal prosecution for share manipulation.

He’s getting desperate.

“I'm sure 30k earners is not the group that is being attacked yet very possibly could be wealthier than those in higher salary brackets. I await his answer with interest.” I’m not ‘attacking’ any group. The evidence I have provided relates to earned income. The Government are handing out borrowed money in the form of ‘tax’ giveaways (tax is paid on income). The whole giving away borrowed money is based on ‘income’.

I don’t need to defend ‘my definition of wealth’ I’ve provided the evidence of how much borrowed money the Government are handing out. The more you earn, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you.

I’ve provided a linked reference to the amount of borrowed money the Government is handing out based on individual income. The higher your income, the more borrowed money the Government is handing you. If you wish to dispute that provide an argument with evidence, I’m not interested in your semantics.

A disgraceful pejorative generalization.

I’m not about to get into making comments on the income of other members, it’s not the topic of discussion and it probably go off rails. You can review the chart I posted to determine an estimate of how much the tax cuts impact your income.

I didn’t say you lied. It’s simply an example claim (statement of a third party’s views) that cannot be substantiated.

Or so you tell us.

Yes she is, she can also fire the Chancellor she chose and appointed. She’s already blamed him for the idea of the cut to the 45% tax cut she’s had to U-Turn on. He’s obviously in the departure lounge. One erratic move after another.

It’s reached the stage now where Gove is arguing for £500 Million to be spent on free school meals for children living in poverty.

Truss is now dodging questions on whether or not she has trust in her Chancellor.

Well yes, that’s how progressive taxation works. Now explain the logic behind borrowing money to give most of it to tax payer 2.

Why do I need to define ‘wealthy’? I’ve provided evidence of the impact of the tax cuts on the incomes of people earning (in 20 increments) between the lowest incomes and the highest. Refer graph and link in my earlier post.

Your math needs attention. The Government borrows money and uses it to cut 1p of the basic tax rate. Tax payer 1 earning a low income of £22570 per year receives £100 of that borrowed money as a tax cut. Tax Payer 2, earning £112,570 per year receives £1000 of that borrowed money as a tax cut. The high earner received more of the borrowed money. How do cuts to services that the wealthy don’t use effect everyone?

Welfare and public service spending cuts are already being openly discussed by the Government. Tax cuts for the already wealthy, welfare and services cut for everyone else.

I’ve already provided the evidence, refer graph and link above.

It’s not quite so simple is it. The Government aren’t redistributing the tax taken in some effort of fairness. They are borrowing money which they are then using to cut taxes, predominantly the taxes of the already wealthy. The tax cuts are unfunded. The Government are borrowing money to give to the rich.

Forgive me, when you set the foundations of you argument by assigning to me points of view I have never myself expressed, I quite naturally disregard the whole of your post. The topic of dis discussion is not ‘what you believe I think’, it’s not ‘what I think is the correct tax rate’. Two attempts to make the discussion personal. Refer OP above for tge topic of discussion.

Quite clearly you are engaging in bad faith arguments. Yoi have challenged my statement(s) that the tax cuts in mini budget favour the already wealthy over those on moderate and low incomes. I have provided you with evidence to back my arguments from a reputable source. Now you try to change the gold posts again. Well of course you do, I have demonstrated my statements to be correct. Enjoy the rest of your day, I have no time for bad faith arguments.

Perhaps should stick to the topic of discussion, which is not ‘what you think I might have a thing about’.