|
Post by guymonde on Aug 28, 2022 21:20:59 GMT
I completely get the health aspect, but, in an an emergency situation, when treats are fewer and further between, especially for those least well off, when life will be miserable for many, is what is effectively using austerity to promote health benefits the way forward? Ok, I eggagerate, but, not totally. As to tobacco, it is highly addictive - and as already said something disproportionately used by those less well off. Yes, there is help for those that want to quit, but, like all drugs, to be successful, the want has to be genuine. It would still be expensive, there would be few taking it up because it is slightly less so (and young people are more likely to take the far cheaper vaping option), but, a VAT cut would offer some financial help in a time of emergency for those already addicted and paying to feed their habit every day. VAT on goods has never been applied on the basis of 'whats good for you' but the completely arbitrary division of goods into 'luxury' and 'essential'. Chocolate covered biscuits - Luxury, VAT Standard Rate applied A four tier wedding cake - Essential, Zero Rated Frozen Ice Cream - Luxury, VAT Standard Rate applied Frozen Baked Alaska - Essential, Zero Rated Liquor Chocolates - Luxury, VAT Standard Rate applied Rum Babas - Essential, Zero Rated and so on... Reminds me of when I was doing garage bills in the 1970s: MoT test fee - exempt General labour and parts - standard rate 8% Anything to do with a car radio - luxury rate 25% Engine oil - zero rated I also used to receive VAT news , which recorded new decisions about what was a luxury (25%) and what was normal (8%). The one I remember was about fur coats - several paragraphs making arbitrary judgments about different types of animal skins IIRC a good Scottish sheepskin was normal, whereas a Persian Lamb was a luxury . It was the highlight of my month, as a connoisseur of the absurd
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 28, 2022 21:37:41 GMT
And a useful thread here summarising some of the key discoveries regarding long covid -
It's not great, tbh. There is a mass of data, with new studies emerging almost on a daily basis, flagging up the risks and outcomes of long covid. The above author is of the view that covid is triggering an inflammatory response, even after mild cases, which can lead to significant illness long after the virus is cleared from the body. Seeing the mounting evidence, I can understand why he is suggesting this, and my own non-expert sense if that we will, eventually, come to understand that covid is having serious post-infection impacts on large numbers of individuals. Just as there were arguments about deaths 'with' or 'from' covid, and claims that covid death counts were overstated, I suspect that soon we will start to see an elevated death rate and that much of this will ultimately be attributed to long covid in one way or another. I suspect we are already under counting covid deaths because of this.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 28, 2022 21:47:54 GMT
Truss appears confused. Apparently she is rejecting further general help with energy bills as these would be insufficiently targeted, while simultaneously briefing the possibility of an completely un-targeted across the board cut in VAT. I guess she needs to create a distinction between the idea of a tax cut and a handout, but the tautological definitions are meaningless once you explore the actual effects and set these against the justifications given. I get the feeling we'll see a good deal more of these philosophically meaningless confusions under a Truss premiership. It's simple. She doesn't want richer people to miss out on state intervention. With the VAT cut they will benefit more than anyone else. Energy relief unless universal will result in them missing out and poorer people receiving aid. That's unacceptable to Truss's Conservatives.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,203
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 28, 2022 23:18:25 GMT
Yeah, it's really tough here, and I live on the outskirts of London. It will get worse too as most properties for rent are buy-to-lets. As interest rates continue to rise so will mortgage repayments for landlords and hence rents for tenants. My rent hasn't gone up as much as for some people, but it's still now 1450 a month for a 2 bedroomed flat. Yes, it’s already quite alarming and one wonders how much worse it will get. Property prices and rents have not been the greatest concern for the main parties for years, and even now they don’t seem to be saying a great deal about it.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 28, 2022 23:20:52 GMT
Truss appears confused. Apparently she is rejecting further general help with energy bills as these would be insufficiently targeted, while simultaneously briefing the possibility of an completely un-targeted across the board cut in VAT. I guess she needs to create a distinction between the idea of a tax cut and a handout, but the tautological definitions are meaningless once you explore the actual effects and set these against the justifications given. I get the feeling we'll see a good deal more of these philosophically meaningless confusions under a Truss premiership. The tautologies go both ways tho. Isn't one of the perennial arguments on here that cuts to payroll taxes have very limited effect on poorer households because VAT and excise duties make up a much bigger proportion of the tax they pay compared to wealthier ones? This is something that can be done very quickly and quite predictably. Yes the overall impact will see far more total cash saved by wealthier households, but then won't that be true of pretty much any short-term plan for this, unless it's going to involve the kind of brutal and probably self-defeating cliff-edge you'd get from saying eg people on various state benefits qualify and everyone else doesn't?
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,203
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 28, 2022 23:48:06 GMT
A bit more on the possible plans of Truss, this time in The Times: “ Allies of the frontrunner for the Tory leadership believe that the personal allowance, the level above which people begin paying income tax, should be lifted several years ahead of the Treasury’s schedule. It is £12,570 at present.
Others in her team have proposed raising the point at which people tip into the higher rate of tax, 40 per cent, which now stands at £50,270. They are also considering cutting the basic rate below 20 per cent.
The first two measures would help to address the problem of fiscal drag, in which millions of taxpayers have been pulled into higher bands by rampant inflation.
While critics are likely to argue that the cuts would lead to billions of pounds of extra borrowing and further fuel inflation, a Truss ally said that Rishi Sunak had already drawn up plans to cut income tax by 2p by 2024. While personal allowances and income tax thresholds typically rise in line with inflation, last year Sunak was accused of imposing a £21 billion “stealth tax” after he chose to freeze the personal allowance and higher rate threshold for four years.”
…
“The Centre for Social Justice think tank, founded by the Truss backer Sir Iain Duncan Smith, is proposing significantly increasing universal credit from October to give 8.5 million households an additional £219 on average over a three-month period.” This has all the hallmarks of someone without a thought of there own, with a group of young politicos around them grasping at any idea which into the 'low taxes' mantra. Of the ideas, though the obvious one which would help everyone, but especially those most likely to be unable to pay the additional fuel costs, would be raising the basic threshold for paying tax. I hope that prevails as it would genuinely help the low paid and those on benefits which cross the tax threshold. I would think nearly all of it would come back into the economy as well, certainly far more than cuts for those earning over £50k Yes, it did occur when it said she planned to appoint an economic advisor to help with the economic crisis, that it was to give her some idea, any idea, of what to do. (Just hope that it isn’t someone like Osborne).
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 28, 2022 23:56:11 GMT
Truss appears confused. Apparently she is rejecting further general help with energy bills as these would be insufficiently targeted, while simultaneously briefing the possibility of an completely un-targeted across the board cut in VAT. I guess she needs to create a distinction between the idea of a tax cut and a handout, but the tautological definitions are meaningless once you explore the actual effects and set these against the justifications given. I get the feeling we'll see a good deal more of these philosophically meaningless confusions under a Truss premiership. It's simple. She doesn't want richer people to miss out on state intervention. With the VAT cut they will benefit more than anyone else. Energy relief unless universal will result in them missing out and poorer people receiving aid. That's unacceptable to Truss's Conservatives. RAF - I'm sure there is a hefty ideological streak in what's being proposed, given the context of the leadership contest. At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 29, 2022 0:16:10 GMT
It's simple. She doesn't want richer people to miss out on state intervention. With the VAT cut they will benefit more than anyone else. Energy relief unless universal will result in them missing out and poorer people receiving aid. That's unacceptable to Truss's Conservatives. RAF - I'm sure there is a hefty ideological streak in what's being proposed, given the context of the leadership contest. At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to. . eor - I'm not against universality, Far from it in fact. However, it is painfully obvious that cutting VAT will overwhelmingly benefit the better off. It is simply not a move you make during a national crisis to help those at the sharp end of the crisis. They will hardly benefit at all. I would have absolutely no problem with an energy price cap freeze, as that will massively benefit those poorer and middle income earners struggling the most, The Tories' priorities are clear for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 29, 2022 0:24:57 GMT
EOR At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to.
1. As I posted earlier, & you mention yrself, the problem with targeted benefits is how do reach people on low to average incomes, those who are neither on benefits or pensioners (tho this begs the question of why prosperous pensioners benefit). 2. Cuts in the standard tax rate do little for low-to-average-income earners either, & while raising the thraehold from £12,500 does more with this group, it does little or nothing for those on benefits or those in work who pay v little tax. 3. The reversal of the NI increase does nothing for households of any kind earning less than £30 odd 000. Though in an untargeted way it does benefit businesses which are under pressure 4. Yes, universality is good, but to convince us that a v blunt instrument like a 5% decrease in VAT is a good idea you need to provide data on how this affects those on benefits or low-average incomes. 5. A fix on the cap acts as a Universal tax cut for all households, as everyone or virtually everyone buys gas & electricty, tho the well-to-use more energy. Maybe you could limit the fix relief given to to better-off households to get round this. If extended in part or in whole to businesses, it assists them to. Unlike tax cuts a fix is reversible when energy prices fall. In short, it is simple, focuses on energy, reaches everyone, is reversible.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 29, 2022 0:31:09 GMT
RAF - I'm sure there is a hefty ideological streak in what's being proposed, given the context of the leadership contest. At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to. . eor - I'm not against universality, Far from it in fact. However, it is painfully obvious that cutting VAT will overwhelmingly benefit the better off. It is simply not a move you make during a national crisis to help those at the sharp end of the crisis. They will hardly benefit at all. I would have absolutely no problem with an energy price cap freeze, as that will massively benefit those poorer and middle income earners struggling the most, The Tories' priorities are clear for all to see. RAF - doesn't any government-imposed price freeze do exactly that tho? The bigger your bill, the more you'll save, and the bigger the proportions of the savings that will go to the wealthy?
|
|
|
Post by eor on Aug 29, 2022 0:52:26 GMT
EOR At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to.
1. As I posted earlier, & you mention yrself, the problem with targeted benefits is how do reach people on low to average incomes, those who are neither on benefits or pensioners (tho this begs the question of why prosperous pensioners benefit). Yes, exactly that, or rather how to reach each person in that situation without paying to 5-10 other people who don't really need it. I've seen so many systems tried over my career, and none of them have really cracked this yet. That's a bit of a stretch - a full time adult on the minimum wage would be on close to 20k now so whether the threshold for tax and NI is at 12.5k or 10k or 15k makes quite a meaningful difference. Agree it's significance is more to business than to individuals, and I think that was the intention of the policy. That wasn't what I was going for, so much as saying universality is always tempting for politicians because it is quick and easy and predictable. As I said, it will surely massively benefit the people who are paying more already tho, without any heed at all to whether they need it or whether they are conserving energy. Unless you can find a way to define the "better-off households to get round this". I doubt you can tho on the data we have, that's the problem.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 29, 2022 1:10:34 GMT
EOR At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to.
1. As I posted earlier, & you mention yrself, the problem with targeted benefits is how do reach people on low to average incomes, those who are neither on benefits or pensioners (tho this begs the question of why prosperous pensioners benefit). Yes, exactly that, or rather how to reach each person in that situation without paying to 5-10 other people who don't really need it. I've seen so many systems tried over my career, and none of them have really cracked this yet. That's a bit of a stretch - a full time adult on the minimum wage would be on close to 20k now so whether the threshold for tax and NI is at 12.5k or 10k or 15k makes quite a meaningful difference. Agree it's significance is more to business than to individuals, and I think that was the intention of the policy. That wasn't what I was going for, so much as saying universality is always tempting for politicians because it is quick and easy and predictable. As I said, it will surely massively benefit the people who are paying more already tho, without any heed at all to whether they need it or whether they are conserving energy. Unless you can find a way to define the "better-off households to get round this". I doubt you can tho on the data we have, that's the problem. 1. We agree. 2 I said! raising thresholds could be hekpful, but not for those earnng less than 12.500, eg part-time workers. 3, We agree. 4. We agree universality is good. 5. Limit fix to households somehow. That would encourage energy conservation. Apafrt from commending universality you don't seem to have a recommendation or explain why v expensive VAT decrease is to be preferred to a v expensive fix. I don't get yr point.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,038
|
Post by neilj on Aug 29, 2022 6:00:29 GMT
Was crunching some numbers re the proposed vat cut of 5%, for poorer families of around £20,000 household income after taxes, they spend on average 8% on vat rated goods. So they spend £1600 on vat rated goods and services. So a 5% cut would save them £320 a year (if the vat cut is passed on and not just swallowed up in price rises as per the cut in petrol duty) Now put that £320 saving against energy rises. In October 2020 the average price cap was £1,042. It will rise to £3,549 in October this year, a rise of £2,507. Without substantial extra help a vat cut on it's own wont even touch the sides. Even for middle income households the vat cut will still come no where near to meeting the shortfall! The good news is that higher income households will do much better. The cost to the public finances will be huge, as I said with most going to the better off and it will not even solve the problem. Labour's price cap of £2,000 is a blunt instrument, but it is the only thing that comes close to closing the shortfall in a timely manner
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,289
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2022 6:45:43 GMT
alec In your previous post you mentioned you weren't an expert on post covid infection impact. It might have been worth adding that neither is Dr Ely who you referenced. He's an elderly care specialist . This doesn't mean that some or all of his conclusions might not still be correct of course.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 29, 2022 6:51:05 GMT
Record 1,295 people attempt to cross the Channel yesterday, before being rounded up and sent back to England.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 29, 2022 6:54:15 GMT
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,289
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2022 6:57:16 GMT
neilj VAT is a regressive tax applying to those both below and above the tax threshold. It's reduction might, particularly if passed on, do something to protect particularly the hospitality industry and again if passed on could conceivably reduce inflationary pressures. That's the positives , the down side as you pointed out is that it would have minimal impact on the energy crisis and little impact on the general cost of living crisis. A price freeze of energy prices would be far more effective, despite the fact some suggest that it's a blunt instrument the impact for those who pay the highest percentage of their incomes on energy costs is the greatest. Unlike VAT reductions that can be eaten up in profit margins it at least guarantees that the benefit passed to the end user and those at the lower end of income scale are less likely to make vatable purchases.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 2,848
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Aug 29, 2022 7:24:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bedknobsandboomstick on Aug 29, 2022 7:55:06 GMT
EOR At the same time, when looked at politically, there's a lot to be said for universality. Worthy arguments will be made against its cost-effectiveness, but they'll be made by wonks with spreadsheets getting retweets amongst the believers, whereas targeting and cut-offs by definition will create plenty of genuine errors where the state either doesn't have enough info, or current enough info, or there's a combination of odd circumstances that was never anticipated, or someone just makes a mistake. And each such person is potentially on the front page - how can they say I can live off this, look at what they've reduced me to.
1. As I posted earlier, & you mention yrself, the problem with targeted benefits is how do reach people on low to average incomes, those who are neither on benefits or pensioners (tho this begs the question of why prosperous pensioners benefit). 2. Cuts in the standard tax rate do little for low-to-average-income earners either, & while raising the thraehold from £12,500 does more with this group, it does little or nothing for those on benefits or those in work who pay v little tax. 3. The reversal of the NI increase does nothing for households of any kind earning less than £30 odd 000. Though in an untargeted way it does benefit businesses which are under pressure 4. Yes, universality is good, but to convince us that a v blunt instrument like a 5% decrease in VAT is a good idea you need to provide data on how this affects those on benefits or low-average incomes. 5. A fix on the cap acts as a Universal tax cut for all households, as everyone or virtually everyone buys gas & electricty, tho the well-to-use more energy. Maybe you could limit the fix relief given to to better-off households to get round this. If extended in part or in whole to businesses, it assists them to. Unlike tax cuts a fix is reversible when energy prices fall. In short, it is simple, focuses on energy, reaches everyone, is reversible. 6. Limits on energy prices will reduce inflation directly, meaning that fewer interest rate rises are need, thus reducing the cost of government borrowing and the helping with the next crisis of unaffordable nortgage repayments.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Aug 29, 2022 8:03:15 GMT
steve - "It might have been worth adding that neither is Dr Ely who you referenced. He's an elderly care specialist . This doesn't mean that some or all of his conclusions might not still be correct of course." That is perfectly true, and a worthwhile comment. I guess that in response I would suggest that folks click through the links he provides to read the origin research from the specific specialists that he is citing. This is why I talk of a mass of emerging evidence that is all pointing to the breadth, severity and persistence of long covid as a health risk. A good example came last week with a large cohort study into young healthy males (army recruits, median age 21). That particular study found persistent fertility reductions post mild covid. LC is cropping up as an issue all over the place.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,835
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Aug 29, 2022 8:04:33 GMT
Was crunching some numbers re the proposed vat cut of 5%, for poorer families of around £20,000 household income after taxes, they spend on average 8% on vat rated goods. So they spend £1600 on vat rated goods and services. So a 5% cut would save them £320 a year (if the vat cut is passed on and not just swallowed up in price rises as per the cut in petrol duty) Now put that £320 saving against energy rises. In October 2020 the average price cap was £1,042. It will rise to £3,549 in October this year, a rise of £2,507. Without substantial extra help a vat cut on it's own wont even touch the sides. Even for middle income households the vat cut will still come no where near to meeting the shortfall! The good news is that higher income households will do much better. The cost to the public finances will be huge, as I said with most going to the better off and it will not even solve the problem. Labour's price cap of £2,000 is a blunt instrument, but it is the only thing that comes close to closing the shortfall in a timely manner Surely it would be better just to give everyone £500, or £1000 or whatever than lock the price cap, because then it disproportionately helps those with the lowest bills, who are likely to be the poorest. Locking the cap helps those with biggest bills most.
I agree cutting VAt seems likely to be even worse than locking he cap and would disproportionately favour those spending most on luxury items (ie not food etc).
But the real solution needs to explain where this money is coming from. Taxing windfall energy profits makes total sense in the circumstances. General funding next best. Addingit to the future cost of electricity is bad news for the nation.
it is interesting however that unlike when this same thing happened iin the 70s, there really isnt any call to stop using energy. I still have a 'switch off something now' sticker from then on my old calculator. (I reckoned since batteries were massively more expensive for power then mains what really mattered was remembering to switch off same when not needed), as a nation we have become careless in using energy because it has become cheap.
Its very interesting how the electric car concept is being undermined now that unfair subsidies on cheap electricity compared to massively taxed petrol are being removed.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,835
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Aug 29, 2022 8:05:53 GMT
Record 1,295 people attempt to cross the Channel yesterday, before being rounded up and sent back to England. Brexit bonus - we get to keep all our illegal immigrants now and i am sure france is happy to see them go.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Aug 29, 2022 8:15:53 GMT
. eor - I'm not against universality, Far from it in fact. However, it is painfully obvious that cutting VAT will overwhelmingly benefit the better off. It is simply not a move you make during a national crisis to help those at the sharp end of the crisis. They will hardly benefit at all. I would have absolutely no problem with an energy price cap freeze, as that will massively benefit those poorer and middle income earners struggling the most, The Tories' priorities are clear for all to see. RAF - doesn't any government-imposed price freeze do exactly that tho? The bigger your bill, the more you'll save, and the bigger the proportions of the savings that will go to the wealthy? But, it will actually help those struggling the most. Cutting taxes and taxes just helps those at the top.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 29, 2022 8:21:11 GMT
The nation no doubt, as UKPR appears to be, is agog with anticipation about what our new PM and his/ her brand (sic) new administration will do to rescue us all from the economic and social privations that await us (to very varying degrees, depending on where you sit in our unequal society). Once these rescue measures are deployed, be they VAT cuts, targeted payments, income tax/NI cuts, price freezes or a combination of all of them, the nation will no doubt be very grateful.
For this will be a totally new administration remember, decoupled from all that has gone before, and breathing new life into our politics. They will disavow their predecessors follies, even though they're often referring to their very selves when they do so, and they will be fresh and shiny new. Their court press will hail it as a new beginning for the nation. Look, they will say, we have new saviours amongst us. They will purge the Augean stables too. Learning lessons from the past and offering to be whoever we want them to be. The previous 12 years will be a foreign land that was populated by renegades now swept aside.
Well, this will the plan anyway. Cool Lizzie or Slick Rishi will hope to win friends with the political philanthropy, the turning on of socialist taps if you like, they will no doubt soon dispense. The idea that neither will do anything significant in the face of the exploding cost of living cataclysm is absurd. Of course they will. Whether any of it will really effectively address what many are equating to a humanitarian crisis for millions of our poorest citizens, is another question. They will give it a go though, for they have no choice, but their real aim is political salvation for their party and themselves. Smoke and mirrors and a dash to the country is the usual Tory way. Cheered on by their court press and with an insulated core vote taking to the barricades. Roll up for five more years. Look how Liz/ Rishi rose to the challenge. Our brave boys in government and all that. Who could have done any better. It woz the foreigners what caused it all anyway.
We could all get fooled again, I suppose. Our tormentors, the authors of many of our deepest problems, may get rewarded, I suppose. It depends on the numbers who want to punish them instead and evict them.
For there are many of those. A clear majority I'd say. They really do need to get their act together this time.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 8:26:55 GMT
NeilJ: "Was crunching some numbers re the proposed vat cut of 5%, for poorer families of around £20,000 household income after taxes, they spend on average 8% on vat rated goods. So they spend £1600 on vat rated goods and services. So a 5% cut would save them £320 a year."Actually, it would save them just £67 a year (5 120ths of 1600). One possibility for providing a universal payment that disproportionately benefits the worst-off is to make the benefit taxable. Not only is a fixed-sum payment far larger proportionately to the least well off, but they get to retain all or most of it post-tax.
Later: I should add that your post was very valuable in that the corrected figure of £67 illustrates just how feeble cutting vat is as an assistance measure for the poor.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,289
|
Post by steve on Aug 29, 2022 8:28:18 GMT
jib Presumably as he " got Brexit done" you would approve. Hopefully after serial lying to parliament he will face exclusion from parliament ,a recall petition and inevitable humiliation if he attempts to stand in the resulting by election. It's possible that the deranged brexitanians in the Tory party might want the liar back to lie some more but surely writing for the right wing press is more lucrative.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,835
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Aug 29, 2022 8:29:11 GMT
People dont believe me when I have argued conservaties dont want to be in government any more. And no one with a serious wish for an ongoing political career wants to be PM now. Truss is doomed to see matters go from bad to worse whatever she does. Johnson would at least get a mention in the history books as climbing back to office for a second time as leader, and I'm sure he would love that. Whatever might happen to the nation is totally irrelevant, but its hard to see what can be done at this point.
1) lockdown wasted a trillion pounds, but the money is gone whether this fact is admitted or not.
2) brexit continues to erode the Uk economy, but that can only be fixed by rejoining and con cannot do that just yet.
3) Energy policy is a disaster, but about the only thing they can do short term is a windfall tax, and their specific supporters and funders dont like that. Leaving decarbonisation to markets was immensely foolish. Sudden reversals now to allow fracking and building new nuclear are insane reactions to past failures to plan. The privatised energy market is disfunctional with no built in safeguards for consumer and therefore national interest. 4) The Ukraine war could have been prevented by more pro active help to Ukraine a year ago. Now the war can only be fought to a conclusion. We cannot stop supporting Ukraine because that would make future conflicts worse, so we are stuck with the economc consequences.
5) Housing policy (ie refusing to allow enough to be built) is a national economic disaster, but again is long term con policy dating from Thatcher. Even if they rush change planning laws and force through a million planning consents within the next six months it would all still be far too late to solve the current problem. This was a political attack upon labour, because it meant your labour council was unable to provide you with a cheap rented home. But it has undermined Uk competitiveness through the cost of housing knock on to all costs.
6) Imbalance in pay between poor and rich has been deliberate conservative policy also since thatcher. The consequnces of this for the economy are vast and sinergistic with the consequences of leaving the EU, which has cut our essential supply of cheap labour. The realignment of pay rates is going to do terrible things to established businesses. especially since no one wants to invest in UK industry since brexit.
7) transport policy...privatisation was a big blow to a functional public transport system, which simply gave profits to private companies. Privatisation by con has always been a political attack upon labour, because it removes tools which a government has available to help the poor, which was always labour's hook. Part of this heading ought to cover policies like centralising the entire Uk economy upon London and the SE, which has caused intense inequality and indeed exacerbated stuff like housing and water shortages in the SE.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Aug 29, 2022 8:36:04 GMT
CB11: "They will purge the Aegean stables too."
Oh, no, not more Balkan adventurism. But perhaps we could set the task for Johnson, who no doubt sees himself as the modern Hercules.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Aug 29, 2022 8:43:53 GMT
CB11: "They will purge the Aegean stables too." Oh, no, not more Balkan adventurism. But perhaps we could set the task for Johnson, who no doubt sees himself as the modern Hercules. Augean, obviously. Now amended. It was my Mediterranean biased autotext. Honestly. 😉🥴
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,097
|
Post by oldnat on Aug 29, 2022 8:45:24 GMT
I see that the Prince of Wales has broken down off the south coast of England. Was he trying to flee to France for the cheaper leccy?
|
|