Pound slumps to all-time low against dollar

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Both I and placeholder have provided you a link

An outdated link containing comments, not facts, made prior to the announcement that the 45% tax bracket would remain.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

An outdated link containing comments, not facts, made prior to the announcement that the 45% tax bracket would remain.

Try this up to date link to an analysis by the ‘Resolution foundation’ on who benefits from the mini budget after the u-turn in the 45% tax rate:

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chart-mini-budget-rich-45p-tax-rate-u-turn-145231498.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnRoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMveXhzJOG167GZpt8QzP-CvhpHaS9seESCgfj0WYO6rHoKxkIK-Efx4rYaHFJql551aaoHMnRGAkYfzg4gQXu6PmoZKGbg5tHRzgepmVmotCQbKmhNtuGYkHJqjwQ5zHvoviDkfezcn0bx553uJsouAZ3GCWoM1RQY9BhspNa3

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Try this up to date link to an analysis by the ‘Resolution foundation’ on who benefits from the mini budget after the u-turn in the 45% tax rate:

 

 

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chart-mini-budget-rich-45p-tax-rate-u-turn-145231498.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnRoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMveXhzJOG167GZpt8QzP-CvhpHaS9seESCgfj0WYO6rHoKxkIK-Efx4rYaHFJql551aaoHMnRGAkYfzg4gQXu6PmoZKGbg5tHRzgepmVmotCQbKmhNtuGYkHJqjwQ5zHvoviDkfezcn0bx553uJsouAZ3GCWoM1RQY9BhspNa3

Perhaps you have a "thing" about well off people, you know, the ones who create jobs that actually got them well off.

 

Handing over 40/45/50 or more % of money coming in, is really a bummer for anyone, I would have thought.

 

Well, it would be for me....

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Perhaps you have a "thing" about well off people, you know, the ones who create jobs that actually got them well off.

 

Handing over 40/45/50 or more % of money coming in, is really a bummer for anyone, I would have thought.

 

Well, it would be for me....

 

Please. Provide some proof that most of those paying the highest tax rate are job creators.

[transam]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Please. Provide some proof that most of those paying the highest tax rate are job creators.

Where did I say "most".....? ????

I thought you had a bit more savvy to understand my post....????

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, transam said:

Where did I say "most".....? ????

I thought you had a bit more savvy to understand my post....????

Actually, you're the one who claimed that they are the job creators without offering any exceptions. Here's what you wrote:

 

"Perhaps you have a "thing" about well off people, you know, the ones who create jobs that actually got them well off."

 

So thanks for your correction. Your claim was even more extreme than how I represented it.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

Perhaps you have a "thing" about well off people, you know, the ones who create jobs that actually got them well off.

 

Handing over 40/45/50 or more % of money coming in, is really a bummer for anyone, I would have thought.

 

Well, it would be for me....

 

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

[youreavinalaff]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Try this up to date link to an analysis by the ‘Resolution foundation’ on who benefits from the mini budget after the u-turn in the 45% tax rate:

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chart-mini-budget-rich-45p-tax-rate-u-turn-145231498.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnRoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMveXhzJOG167GZpt8QzP-CvhpHaS9seESCgfj0WYO6rHoKxkIK-Efx4rYaHFJql551aaoHMnRGAkYfzg4gQXu6PmoZKGbg5tHRzgepmVmotCQbKmhNtuGYkHJqjwQ5zHvoviDkfezcn0bx553uJsouAZ3GCWoM1RQY9BhspNa3

 

 

Once again you fail.

 

I asked you to provide facts, in your own words, of tax cuts that provide massively for the highest earners.

 

All you have posted is a graph showing percentages. It goes without saying that someone on 50k a year will save more but then they are paying more tax anyway.

 

You obviously need to go away and think about it. While you are at it, find a graph that shows how much a 50k earner pays in tax compared to a 20k earner. That would be fairer. We could then compare tax paid to percentage saved just to see how fair it is.

 

You could also post how much each group gets in tax credits, to make it even fairer. Maybe post how much those on benefits pay inbtax, just to make it fairer.

 

I look forward to reading your facts. Thanks.

[transam]

Just now, placeholder said:

Actually, you're the one who claimed that they are the job creators without offering any exceptions. Here's what you wrote:

 

"Perhaps you have a "thing" about well off people, you know, the ones who create jobs that actually got them well off."

 

So thanks for your correction. Your claim was even more extreme than how I represented it.

 

Did I write "most", well no........But, you carry on.....????

[transam]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

And the other bit of my post you have missed out...?  ????

[In Full Agreement]

 

Compared to yesterday the USD suffered a decline against the Baht.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Once again you fail.

 

I asked you to provide facts, in your own words, of tax cuts that provide massively for the highest earners.

 

All you have posted is a graph showing percentages. It goes without saying that someone on 50k a year will save more but then they are paying more tax anyway.

 

You obviously need to go away and think about it. While you are at it, find a graph that shows how much a 50k earner pays in tax compared to a 20k earner. That would be fairer. We could then compare tax paid to percentage saved just to see how fair it is.

 

You could also post how much each group gets in tax credits, to make it even fairer. Maybe post how much those on benefits pay inbtax, just to make it fairer.

 

I look forward to reading your facts. Thanks.

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. 
 

 

[James105]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Try this up to date link to an analysis by the ‘Resolution foundation’ on who benefits from the mini budget after the u-turn in the 45% tax rate:

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chart-mini-budget-rich-45p-tax-rate-u-turn-145231498.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnRoLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHMveXhzJOG167GZpt8QzP-CvhpHaS9seESCgfj0WYO6rHoKxkIK-Efx4rYaHFJql551aaoHMnRGAkYfzg4gQXu6PmoZKGbg5tHRzgepmVmotCQbKmhNtuGYkHJqjwQ5zHvoviDkfezcn0bx553uJsouAZ3GCWoM1RQY9BhspNa3

 

 

Well, blow me down with a feather!  The people who pay the most tax will save the most when it comes to tax cuts.   It even looks as though those who do not pay any tax will not benefit from a tax cut at all!   How can this be?  This is outrageous! 

 

This is no different to Ferrari knocking 10% off their cars at the same time as Ford does the same.   Those who can afford the Ferrari will make a much, much bigger saving - the rich just get all the breaks!   Right, that's it, time to head over to the Guardian/Morning Star comments section so I can express some outrage...

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, transam said:

Did I write "most", well no........But, you carry on.....????

I can only go by what you write, not by what you claim to have meant.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

And the other bit of my post you have missed out...?  ????

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.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

Well, blow me down with a feather!  The people who pay the most tax will save the most when it comes to tax cuts.   It even looks as though those who do not pay any tax will not benefit from a tax cut at all!   How can this be?  This is outrageous! 

 

This is no different to Ferrari knocking 10% off their cars at the same time as Ford does the same.   Those who can afford the Ferrari will make a much, much bigger saving - the rich just get all the breaks!   Right, that's it, time to head over to the Guardian/Morning Star comments section so I can express some outrage...

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.

 

 

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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 in-funded.

 

The Government are borrowing money to give to the rich.

 

 

 

Do you have a link to your claim, I mean, a Tory MP pointing out that claim...?

Not one from for Starmer & Co. or The Guardian, please..????

[James105]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

 

 

 

They are not giving the rich anything, they are just taking a little bit less of their money in taxes so they can choose how their hard earned income is spent, rather than the state. 

 

Now if your argument is that if the tax income is reduced, then so should the services that are paid for by taxes, then I would agree with you.   NHS budget would be a good place to start I think, along with reducing benefits to incentivise those in receipt of them to take up one of the over 1 million job vacancies available.    

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

predominantly the taxes of the already wealthy. 
 

Please show that in facts. I think you'll find the tax cut to 19% covers all tax payers.

 

Also, you seem to think all wealthy people earn in the higher tax bracket. Interesting. I know many people with wealth that have never earned over 50k a year. I also know those that earn over 100k that are cash poor.

 

Once again you are wide of the mark with your comment.

 

 

[placeholder]

16 minutes ago, James105 said:

Well, blow me down with a feather!  The people who pay the most tax will save the most when it comes to tax cuts.   It even looks as though those who do not pay any tax will not benefit from a tax cut at all!   How can this be?  This is outrageous! 

 

This is no different to Ferrari knocking 10% off their cars at the same time as Ford does the same.   Those who can afford the Ferrari will make a much, much bigger saving - the rich just get all the breaks!   Right, that's it, time to head over to the Guardian/Morning Star comments section so I can express some outrage...

Silly argument. For instance, before Truss did her U-turn on income tax rates the percentage was on a percentage basis in favor of the rich. And, of course, it doesn't have to be the case that the percentage favors the wealthy. She could have proposed a five percent tax cut on lower earners and just a 1 percent tax cut for the wealthiest. So it doesn't logically follow that tax cuts will necessarily favor the wealthy.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Please show that in facts. I think you'll find the tax cut to 19% covers all tax payers.

 

Also, you seem to think all wealthy people earn in the higher tax bracket. Interesting. I know many people with wealth that have never earned over 50k a year. I also know those that earn over 100k that are cash poor.

 

Once again you are wide of the mark with your comment.

 

 

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

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

They are not giving the rich anything, they are just taking a little bit less of their money in taxes so they can choose how their hard earned income is spent, rather than the state. 

 

Now if your argument is that if the tax income is reduced, then so should the services that are paid for by taxes, then I would agree with you.   NHS budget would be a good place to start I think, along with reducing benefits to incentivise those in receipt of them to take up one of the over 1 million job vacancies available.    

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.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Let's hope the dodgy illegal immigrant people are dealt a severe blow in their cuts.. ????

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

OK. You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'll make it short.

 

The 20% to 19% tax cut benefits ALL tax payers.

 

Any services cuts affect EVERYONE.

 

Benefits cuts might lead to the million jobs currently available being taken. More employed, more tax revenue, less benefits paid out. WIN WIN.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

OK. You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'll make it short.

 

The 20% to 19% tax cut benefits ALL tax payers.

 

Any services cuts affect EVERYONE.

 

Benefits cuts might lead to the million jobs currently available being taken. More employed, more tax revenue, less benefits paid out. WIN WIN.

 

 

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?

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

How do cuts to services that the wealthy don’t use effect everyone?

Do the wealthy not get sick? Do they not have education? Are they never victims of crime? Are they immune to house fires? Do they never go out?

 

I would like to know how much you think someone needs to have to be wealthy? How much do they or did they earn? Does a wealthy person need cash in the bank? I know mortgageless people whose property is worth 750k. Are they wealthy? I know someone who lives in a 2 bed flat worth 280k, has a BMW and 300k in the bank. Is he wealthy? 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Do the wealthy not get sick? Do they not have education? Are they never victims of crime? Are they immune to house fires? Do they never go out?

 

I would like to know how much you think someone needs to have to be wealthy? How much do they or did they earn? Does a wealthy person need cash in the bank? I know mortgageless people whose property is worth 750k. Are they wealthy? I know someone who lives in a 2 bed flat worth 280k, has a BMW and 300k in the bank. Is he wealthy? 

 

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.

 

 

[James105]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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?

Another way of looking at that:

 

Taxpayer 1 earning £22570 per year currently pays £2,014 income tax.

Taxpayer 2, earning £112,570 per year currently pays £32,538 income tax.

 

So after the tax cut tax payer 1 will pay just £1914 and tax payer 2 will pay a whopping £31,538 income tax!   So tax payer 2 is earning 5 times as much as tax payer 1, yet pays 15 times more income tax. 

 

[candide]

16 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

OK. You seem to be suffering from selective reading. I'll make it short.

 

The 20% to 19% tax cut benefits ALL tax payers.

 

Any services cuts affect EVERYONE.

 

Benefits cuts might lead to the million jobs currently available being taken. More employed, more tax revenue, less benefits paid out. WIN WIN.

 

 

A rationale which has little to do with reality.

 

The current situation is rather good re people who are officially unemployed (and can get unemployment benefits), as there are less unemployed people than ob vacancies.

 

The problem is older people not participating in the job market. These people may be excluded by age limits defined by recruiters, or may not be adapted to the job vacancies, I.e. not fit for hard physical job and difficult or for jobs requiring specific skills.

 

"Over one in four (27 per cent) people aged 50 to 64 are neither in work nor looking for work – up from 25.4 per cent two years ago.

Experts are urging employers to adopt more flexible working policies and remove age-bias from their recruitment processes to attract older workers to fill surging vacancies. 

“The UK workforce participation crisis is continuing – driven by older workers leaving the labour market,” 

"With 246,000 fewer people aged 50 to 64 participating in the workforce, “companies are missing out on the positive impact older workers can bring,” she continued."

https://www.bigissue.com/news/employment/the-uk-has-more-job-vacancies-than-unemployed-people-for-the-first-time/

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

Another way of looking at that:

 

Taxpayer 1 earning £22570 per year currently pays £2,014 income tax.

Taxpayer 2, earning £112,570 per year currently pays £32,538 income tax.

 

So after the tax cut tax payer 1 will pay just £1914 and tax payer 2 will pay a whopping £31,538 income tax!   So tax payer 2 is earning 5 times as much as tax payer 1, yet pays 15 times more income tax. 

 

Well yes, that’s how progressive taxation works.

 

Now explain the logic behind borrowing money to give most of it to tax payer 2.