Someone had to pay. Is this a “class”-based budget, the chancellor is asked on the BBC? No, it’s raising money urgently needed for the NHS and all public services. Someone has to pay, and if not the best-off, then who?
Labour chose larger employers, those with more than four employees. And Labour taxed the well-off, those with capital gains and private jets, those joining the 7% with rental properties, and the families of the 7% of children in private schools. Even with the changes to inheritance tax (IHT) on farms and businesses, only 7% of estates are expected to be liable. Pension pots will now pay IHT – but they did previously, until George Osborne changed them as another gift to the wealthy in 2015.
Sad stories of the stricken rich have, frankly, been quite enjoyable to read.
#And of course Polly doesn’t realise that “business” doesn;t pay taxes because it cannot. Nor that of course there’s an alternative – piss less up against the wall.
Utter guff.
The unions kept Labour financed while it was in the political wilderness for 14 years. The vast increase in wages to public sector employees since July 4th is the 1st instalment of Danegeld for that support.
Labour’s bollocks about black holes aside, the £40 billion a year in tax rises will barely cover the increased wage bill (without any requirement for increased productivity or reduction in “Spanish practices”).
What will be interesting is if despite all the increase in tax rates, actual tax revenue falls, since I believe we are well beyond the maximising point for tax rises on the “Income Tax” Laffer Curve (this includes Employer’s NI, since it’s incidence is on employees, not employers).
They might get an increase in revenue initially, because non of this was announced before the election, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see actual Income Tax revenues falling at a steadily increasing rate from 2025 onwards.
Presumably, TwoTierKeir thinks he can get away with pain now as it will be forgotten by the next election.
TwoTierKeir doesn’t seem to realise that things have changed. The Tory/Labour uniparty duopoly is in its death throes.
No one seems to have a reason for why the “best-off” (those with the broadest shoulders) have to pay for people to not work (dole scroungers or more likely these days, on the “sick”) or the lazy public sector.
Fairness just seems to be another way of saying the “minority” should pay. That sounds a lot like discrimination to me. And more disposable income is justification for redistribution.
If you use public services, you need to have some skin in the game and pay for them. “No representation without taxation” is another way to put it.
Has there ever been an incarnation of the Labour Party Polly didn’t wholeheartedly sing the praises of?
This is ‘Solid Gold’ – might even be worse than Murphy.
Labour chose larger employers, those with more than four employees.
My local garage is a family affair serving a village of 2,000 people for more than 4 decades? It has six employees – is that what Toynbee classes as a ‘large business’. Let’s hope when we lower the threshold to two there’s anything left to carve up?
And Labour taxed the well-off, those with capital gains and private jets, those joining the 7% with rental properties, and the families of the 7% of children in private schools.
All of whom were already paying the vast majority of the tax being paid. If you are fond of Golden Eggs, shooting the Golden goose is not the smart plan. Additionally taxes were already at their highest for nearly 5 decades.
Even with the changes to inheritance tax (IHT) on farms and businesses, only 7% of estates are expected to be liable. Pension pots will now pay IHT – but they did previously, until George Osborne changed them as another gift to the wealthy in 2015.
With carveouts for public Sector Pensioners whose pension rights and likely payouts dwarf those on offer in the private sector.
Nor does Labour see meltdown in polling and focus groups. People are just relieved that it’s not as bad as they expected, with no hits to payslips, no fuel tax, no fiscal drag, with a good minimum wage rise for more than 3 million people.
Which will result in higher unemployment – if Murphy and Tim are agreeing something is bad what does that tell you? Given this is the worst government in Human history after only four months my expectations were at Marian Trench level so it was not as bad as I feared. It’s still one of the worst budgets in living memory and utterly fails to address the root causes of economic decline.
They get it that the wealthy and employers bear most, the IFS graph showing a steep gradient with the richest paying most, the poorest least. That’s why those such as Andrew Neil in the Mail damn it as a “fatally flawed and seriously socialist budget that dooms Britain to another lost decade”. Voters, however, rank capital gains and private schools among their top three choices for tax increases. Are they jubilant? No, of course not – but they feared worse.
As Tim points out (and numerous others) – inflation figures already reflect the misallocation of resource to the non productive public sector and public sector pay rises for no productivity gain. There need to be massive cuts to the public sector. Millions of jobs need to be shredded with loss of pension rights and all public sector workers, starting with MPs shifted onto money purchase schemes. Economic ruin will force this to happen whether the likes of Toynbee want it to or not.
What matters now is tangible results, growth in pay packets,
This is the economics of ‘Bob’ Mugabe – paying people more money with no additional goods and services provided (and productivity in something like the EHRC is 100% negative) will cause hyperinflation.
growth in the economy and growth in public services
We already spend over 1 trillion – we need massive cuts in public service – not more waste
: monthly NHS waiting lists numbers will be the ineluctable measure of recovery, difficult as winter blows in.
Jesus Christ – we have Newcastle annually coming in on the boats – you’re like the Titanic captain obsessing over the backroom toilet while the ship has broken apart.
No-drama-Starmer’s strength is sticking to the course, as he did from day one, reshaping his party.
Starmer is a charisma – free automaton whose open contempt for the country ought to lead to a treason charge and a capital sentence when the dust settles.
Don’t panic over the Office for Budget Responsibility’s miserly prediction of 2% growth: the main growth-drivers are still to come. In next week’s Mansion House speech, Reeves will shake up pension funds, pumping billions of investment into infrastructure.
Which has worked so well for HS 2 – sounds like it will be swallowed up by DIE, LGBT and other total wastes of funds.
There is already the £63bn from Labour’s summit for private investors, and over the weekend there was the £500m investment in Cambridge’s biomedical research campus by Prologis.
500 million in a £1.2 trillion budget is genuine chickenfeed. Business is looking to relocate as are hundreds of productive workers. We stand on the edge of an abyss.
Still to come are planning laws to propel housebuilding: expect Angela Rayner to get reluctant developers’ spades into their landbank of 150,000 sites for homes already with detailed planning permission.
The workforce for the houses to be provided by ‘Jihadis General contractors’ coming in on the boats no doubt – whatever she has been shooting up/ smoking – she should market it. The definition of delusion.
@Joe Smith
No one seems to have a reason for why the “best-off (those with the broadest shoulders) have to pay …..”
Whilst it’s easier to steal from the poor it’s generally more cost effective to steal from the better off as they have more available to nick.
Does anyone think she will actually get 40bn from the tax rises? No second order effects, no punters ‘lying flat’, no firms just choosing to pack it in or reduce staff?
And Labour taxed the well-off, those with capital gains and private jets, those joining the 7% with rental properties, and the families of the 7% of children in private schools.
It might be worth pointing out, V_P, that this is the crowd by preference Polly runs with. And had done since the days she was schlepping her embroidered Afghan leaching her way around W11 & W8 postal codes. One might say her dinner pail is filled by salving their social consciousnesses.
@Rhoda Over the past years both Shell and Unilever shut their main offices in Clogland and moved fully to London, “for shareholder value and simplicity of corporate management” , over a mere effective 2% rise in , already lowball, corporate tax.
Nothing stops them, and the likes, of doing something similar again. And Labour plans to fleece them much, much more…
If I remember correctly some Shell or Unilever shareholders/blocks correctly guessed the current UK election result, and proposed Basel. But they lost out.
“Labour chose larger employers, those with more than four employees.”
How many employees did Rodney Starmer’s Oxted Tool Company, have? I think we should be told.
if not the best-off, then who?
Thing with constantly tapping the ‘best-off’ is that they are also the most likely to have the horizons and wherewithal to do one out of Third World Britain and go somewhere else, maybe even the proper Third World, because at least that is cheap.
The left claim this won’t happen, yet they have welcomed 10 million people from the world’s most backwards toilets to the UK “in search of a better life”. But apparently this sort of move is beyond UK citizens with a few quid and a bit of gumption.
Mind you, pushing the definition of “best off” to encompass “people running businesses with four staff” is quite a stretch, even for these cunts.
“ Someone had to pay. Is this a “class”-based budget…”
Greed is the desire for other people’s money to use for your own purposes – and is a sin.
Coveted in the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.
My friend was moaning about how her colleagues in the Probation service are utterly lazy the other day. She oversees cases that Probation are bringing to court, checking all the statements and documents are correct, contain the required information, comply with legal rules etc etc, before the cases actually go to court. She works from home, and in an average day completes 10-15 cases. 10 if she has several Crown Court cases to do (they are more complicated), 15 if they are all simple magistrates ones. Her colleagues who work in the same team doing the same work manage 6-8 at best, and some manage only 3-4. It pretty obvious that they are just bunking off work (they all work from home) for extended periods of time. Walking the dog, shopping, even going to the gym. Their home work monitoring system often shows them as not at their computers for hours at a time. Yet management does nothing. You could replace half a dozen of them with 3 like my friend and more work would be done at half the cost. I expect this could be extrapolated across the entire State sector.
it’s raising money urgently needed for the NHS ….
The NHS is always, always, urgently in need of more money and always will be for the likes of Polly. They will never write down a number and say this is what it will take to satisfy me the NHS is adequately funded because for them the NHS isn’t a service for providing healthcare, its political weapon to bash the Tories.
Jim
Productivity in the state sector is often based on a Bret Easton Ellis novel – Less than Zero. Legion tales of people swinging the lead and as its so heavily unionised discipline restoration is impossible. To give such people a blanket no strings pay rise is demented but I expect nothing less from this rabble.
John B
I could quote from the RoP – soon to surpass Christianity as the majority religion in the UK – From the jurist, Al Ghazali:
“Three Habits Destroy
a Man Or Woman:
Greed, Envy
and Pride.”
I expect this could be extrapolated across the entire State sector.
Very much so. I have a relative who works as a health inspector for food premises. The bread and butter of the job is inspecting pubs, restaurants etc. She has completed twice as many inspections as the next best of her colleagues. And the worst of her colleagues are a bunch of skiving shits, off sick half the time with confected mental health problems and doing nothing when allegedly working.
You could decimate the public sector workforce (ideally literally) without suffering any change in output.
Rachel Reeves CANNOT “shake up the pension funds” to invest in (choose current idiot idea) as that would require *previously* repealing all the laws on the duties of trustees and that wouldn’t get through the HoL Charles might decline to appoint a raft of politically-selected new Life Peers just to pass palpably wrong legislation to enable Rachel Reeves to follow Polly’s orders as he is conscious of his duties as a constitutional monarch.
@ Joe Smith
In their eyes it’s the same reason why we should pay for the deserving poor (I hope that no-one disputes that we should pay for the deserving poor) – because we are the ones with some money over and above that needed to keep a roof over our head and to feed us THIS WEEK; they ignore the fact that this money is that which we have saved up to keep a roof over our head and feed us after we have had to stop working when we get old and their grasping will deter everyone (including ourselves but mostly the younger generation) from saving and investing with disastrous effects on the future stock of capital that enables workers to earn more than subsistence famers and, much sooner, on the balance of payments as workers above the breadline spend more on imported consumer goods. I don’t know whether Polly is stupid enough not to understand this (I *do* know that she is significantly more stupid than I) or whether she doesn’t care
“business” doesn;t pay taxes because it cannot.
Then, of course, it cannot pay anything else such as rent, interest, wages, goods, services, etc, etc.
“Pension pots will now pay IHT – but they did previously, until George Osborne changed them as another gift to the wealthy in 2015.”
This is bollocks, isn’t it? I worked in pensions more than 10 years ago and I’m fairly sure that pension pots were not subject to IHT then, and haven’t been at any point since. The logistics of it will be a pain in the ass…
You inherit a Spouse’s pension that pays £50k per year. That’s worth £1m (using the govt valuation method of 20x annual value, actual cost would be a lot more) – so now you have to pay tax on it, without getting any cash to pay the tax? If you inherit nothing else, just the inheritance tax could bankrupt you… I’ve not done any reading on how they intend for it to work, but it sounds problematic
@Jim: a young chum of mine used to work for a management consultant. He once managed to sack a whole department at the BBC except the boss. His argument was that the boss was a lousy manager but an excellent worker – she produced damn near all the department’s output on her own.
He was struck at how flagrant the abuse was – vanishing for lunch mid-morning, returning tipsy in late afternoon en route to the tube.
RA,
Some pension pots weren’t subject to IHT, but not all. My IFA did explain it some time ago ago, something to do with how they were set up and couldn’t be easily added to once you changed employment.
i have one which she made sure was protected and I’ve been drawing down from my mother pots since I retired, but it looks like that effort has gone to waste.
@RA: As I understand it a pension – as in a flow of income – wouldn’t be taxed except by income tax on the recipient. The new IHT exposure will apply entirely (or almost so) to a “pension pot” i.e. a lump of capital within a SIPP or other DC pension.
The present proposition is that a pension pot left to a spouse will not pay IHT. Keep an eye on the “consultation” to see whether that survives.
God, but that woman is awful. Nasty and spiteful to the core. She has no idea about the people who actually end up funding government largesse and glories in the pain that this awful budget is causing ordinary people. She despises the Kulaks and revels in their demise.
@ Longrider
You espouse two alternative, contradictory theories in one comment.
Either she has no idea about the people who fund government expenditure OR she glories in the pain – not both
There’s no contradiction John. She can have both no idea who funds government expenditure & simultaneously glory in the pain of ordinary people. There’s no requirement she identifies one as the other.
I doubt if she glories in the pain of ordinary people but she’s certainly made a living out of it. One might say the pain of ordinary people is a requirement of her lifestyle. She certainly wouldn’t like it to cease.
@Me – “Then, of course, it cannot pay anything else such as rent, interest, wages, goods, services, etc, etc.”
Correct. Its customers pay for all of these, unless the business is unsuccessful in which case the investors may end up paying for things like these as the business goes bust and they are left with nothing.