3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please could you elaborate? What tax cuts for the wealthy were there in the mini budget last Friday? Thanks.

Top tax rate was cut from 45% to 40%.

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please could you elaborate? What tax cuts for the wealthy were there in the mini budget last Friday? Thanks.

Each of the tax cuts in the ‘proposed budget’ massively favorites the wealthy.

 

As wide reported at the time.

https://fullfact.org/economy/kwasi-kwarteng-mini-budget/

Remember when it was said of a truss (by her supporters) that she is competent and gets things done.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No they have not, they’ve scrapped the 45-> 40% tax cut to high earners.

 

High earners are still to receive £Billions of tax cuts paid for with borrowed money.

Sorry to do this to you again but that's not correct either. There was a plan to reduce the top rate of tax but it wasn't going to become effective until next year, these things are always done on a forward year basis. But then the move was panned and then cancelled, now the rate will not be scrapped after all.

19 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Top tax rate was cut from 45% to 40%.

We have already discussed the cancellation of that cut. The poster I quoted is saying there are others. I'm asking for confirmation of those.

3 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

Sorry to do this to you again but that's not correct either. There was a plan to reduce the top rate of tax but it wasn't going to become effective until next year, these things are always done on a forward year basis. But then the move was panned and then cancelled, now the rate will not be scrapped after all.

It was a U-Turn.

 

And she’ll do it again the next time she comes up with a half baked idiot idea.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Each of the tax cuts in the ‘proposed budget’ massively favorites the wealthy.

 

As wide reported at the time.

https://fullfact.org/economy/kwasi-kwarteng-mini-budget/

Those comments,were made when the 45% to 40% cut was in place.

 

Please could you explain, in your own words, the other tax cuts that fortune the wealthy and no one else. The ones you were talking about in your post that I quoted.

 

Thanks.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

We have already discussed the cancellation of that cut. The poster I quoted is saying there are others. I'm asking for confirmation of those.

Let me give you an example.

 

NI ( a tax) cancelling the planned rise massively favours a the already wealthy.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Those comments,were made when the 45% to 40% cut was in place.

 

Please could you explain, in your own words, the other tax cuts that fortune the wealthy and no one else. The ones you were talking about in your post that I quoted.

 

Thanks.

Quit with the Strawman.

 

When I say ‘favours the already wealthy’ or ‘massively favours the already wealthy’ I do not say ‘but nobody else’,

 

Stop putting words in my mouth.

14 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Those comments,were made when the 45% to 40% cut was in place.

 

Please could you explain, in your own words, the other tax cuts that fortune the wealthy and no one else. The ones you were talking about in your post that I quoted.

 

Thanks.

Hww about the stamp duty? Wasn't that cut?

34 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

Indeed I did read the article but I stopped when the author started to use previous articles she had written as the basis for her current article and the justification to support her current view. There's nothing quite like using experts to support your opinion and hypothesis but when you are that expert...well!

Assuming the referenced piece of research can also stand alone on its' own merit I  don't understand why that should be a problem?

 

Btw: Prof Costas is a man!

 

34 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

After that I started to look at the ownership of the site and its history, it's effectively university academics and researchers rather than industry or sector experts.

It seems strange that university academics and researchers can be so easily dismissed as having nothing to contribute to an argument. But, of course, that is just my opinion.

 

34 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

There was yet a third aspect which had to do with the founder of the site which you will be well aware of given the controversy surrounding him. That was enough for me. So yes, I did do due diligence before I dismissed the link.

I'm unaware of any controversy. My cursory look at the background of the founders of the site revealed that one was a former editor of the Observer and The Age. The other describes himself as "an advisor to CEOs". What's the problem?

 

In any event, none of this casts any doubt about the credibility of the article which I quoted.

How is possible to open your mouth and cause the BoE to have to spend £65Billion to prop up Sterling as a direct result of the idiocy that came out of your mounth… and still keep your job?

Two tough years, that's what the PM said, so let's talk about it after those two tough years....

No use trying to trounce after just two weeks....????

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Two tough years, that's what the PM said, so let's talk about it after those two tough years....

No use trying to trounce after just two weeks....????

You may have a point. She can be left to trounce herself

11 minutes ago, transam said:

Two tough years, that's what the PM said, so let's talk about it after those two tough years....

No use trying to trounce after just two weeks....????

She’s just done a U-turn in a matter of days.

 

What she says has absolutely no credibility.

 

On 9/26/2022 at 7:51 AM, webfact said:

The pound has fallen to a record low against the dollar as markets react to the UK's biggest tax cuts in 50 years.

Which has now become truss’ latest u turn. 

1 hour ago, transam said:

Two tough years, that's what the PM said, so let's talk about it after those two tough years....

No use trying to trounce after just two weeks....????

It's fair enough to suggest that we judge the success of her government's policies after two years (assuming that they remain consistent).

 

However, the manner in which  these economic policies were introduced - and the general political ineptness of both Kwarteng and Truss - shouldn't be above criticism now.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

It's fair enough to suggest that we judge the success of her government's policies after two years (assuming that they remain consistent).

 

However, the manner in which  these economic policies were introduced - and the general political ineptness of both Kwarteng and Truss - shouldn't be above criticism now.

Is it fair enough? If evidence is overwhelming that a decision is bad, is it unreasonable to criticize it? It's not like this is a close call.

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

We have already discussed the cancellation of that cut. The poster I quoted is saying there are others. I'm asking for confirmation of those.

If you want to learn about the other cuts favoring the wealthy, here is the link from Chomper Higgot's post. 

https://fullfact.org/economy/kwasi-kwarteng-mini-budget/

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Hww about the stamp duty? Wasn't that cut?

Yes, it was 

 

To benefit first time buyers and those at the lower end of the property market.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Quit with the Strawman.

 

When I say ‘favours the already wealthy’ or ‘massively favours the already wealthy’ I do not say ‘but nobody else’,

 

Stop putting words in my mouth.

You put the words in your own mouth.

 

Now, please divulge the info you have that proves the cuts favour only the wealthy.

 

The NI cut favours anyone who pays NI, for example.

40 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you want to learn about the other cuts favoring the wealthy, here is the link from Chomper Higgot's post. 

https://fullfact.org/economy/kwasi-kwarteng-mini-budget/

He seems expert in his views and speeches. That's why I asked him to explain in his own words, post the decisions to reverse the 45-40% tax cut, how the wealthy are so much better off.

 

Still waiting.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

It's fair enough to suggest that we judge the success of her government's policies after two years (assuming that they remain consistent).

 

However, the manner in which  these economic policies were introduced - and the general political ineptness of both Kwarteng and Truss - shouldn't be above criticism now.

Truss stated that the UK faces 2 tough years. Presumably things should then start to improve*. I am accepting her timescales. Whether I think that her policies will be successful is another matter.

 

* I find the 2 year timescale a bit baffling. If she is correct then it may well be too late for her and she simply gives a present of an improving economy to the incoming Labour-led government. Maybe I've misjudged her and she is unlike two of  her recent predecessors, who put self and party before country. Truss may be a true altruistic patriot?

6 hours ago, RayC said:

Assuming the referenced piece of research can also stand alone on its' own merit I  don't understand why that should be a problem?

 

Btw: Prof Costas is a man!

 

It seems strange that university academics and researchers can be so easily dismissed as having nothing to contribute to an argument. But, of course, that is just my opinion.

 

I'm unaware of any controversy. My cursory look at the background of the founders of the site revealed that one was a former editor of the Observer and The Age. The other describes himself as "an advisor to CEOs". What's the problem?

 

In any event, none of this casts any doubt about the credibility of the article which I quoted.

Firstly, my apologies that I referred to Prof. Costas as a female, it is the editor who is female.

 

Andrew Jaspan founded the Conversation, he was forced to resign after ALL his journalists at the Conversation signed a petition demanding he do so. Why? Because he yet again attempted to introduce bias, influence journo's and what was written, "It’s not the first high-profile stoush for Jaspan. The British editor was sacked as editor of the Age in 2008 as part of a plan to cut 550 jobs and after 235 journalists voted unanimously to pass a motion accusing him of undermining their ability to report without fear or favor. He launched the Conversation in Australia in 2011". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/21/the-conversations-chairman-resigns-amid-standoff-over-future-of-andrew-jaspan

 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

The whole package is largely unfunded as it is underpinned by increased government borrowing. That's not the issue. The issue is why has this abrupt 'about turn' occurred?

 

I thought that the whole point of cutting the top rate of tax was that the increased spend of this group would generate demand and consumption in lower income brackets?

 

According to the PM yesterday,  this was sound economic policy. If that's the case surely it is today? Where is the courage of her convictions?

She's obviously no Thatcher, but even Thatcher went too far with the vile poll tax.

8 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

You put the words in your own mouth.

 

Now, please divulge the info you have that proves the cuts favour only the wealthy.

 

The NI cut favours anyone who pays NI, for example.

I never said the tax cuts ‘favour only the wealthy’.

 

This is the second time I have corrected your misrepresentation of my statements on this matter.

 

Both I and placeholder have provided you a link which confirms the wealthy benefit hugely more than do those on modest and low incomes, facts that were widely reported in the press.

 

 

Sorry if off-topic but at least our GBP-Thai has improved to 42.90 at the mo..................????

4 hours ago, nigelforbes said:

Firstly, my apologies that I referred to Prof. Costas as a female, it is the editor who is female.

 

Andrew Jaspan founded the Conversation, he was forced to resign after ALL his journalists at the Conversation signed a petition demanding he do so. Why? Because he yet again attempted to introduce bias, influence journo's and what was written, "It’s not the first high-profile stoush for Jaspan. The British editor was sacked as editor of the Age in 2008 as part of a plan to cut 550 jobs and after 235 journalists voted unanimously to pass a motion accusing him of undermining their ability to report without fear or favor. He launched the Conversation in Australia in 2011". https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/21/the-conversations-chairman-resigns-amid-standoff-over-future-of-andrew-jaspan

 

 

Fair play for admitting your error re the Prof's gender.

 

Nevertheless, the rest of your post is totally irrelevant. I might post on a far-right platform - I don't! - it doesn't mean that my post is supportive of the far right or lacks credibility.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

She's obviously no Thatcher, but even Thatcher went too far with the vile poll tax.

Which is totally irrelevant.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Fair play for admitting your error re the Prof's gender.

 

Nevertheless, the rest of your post is totally irrelevant. I might post on a far-right platform - I don't! - it doesn't mean that my post is supportive of the far right or lacks credibility.

The purpose of that previous post was to explain what I wrote earlier about the controversy surrounding the founder of The Conversation. I don't have personal view on left versus right that I publicly promote or even share and I'm not suggesting you do either.