Jump to content

Pound slumps to all-time low against dollar


webfact

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Love It 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Chomper Higgot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by placeholder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...