shmmeee
Well-Known Member
NASWUT still the Union for pussies then
Mini Budget (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
NASWUT still the Union for pussies then
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
That’s disappointing - thought NASUWT would follow suit.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
What are they campaigning for? Shorter hours and more holidays? Or more inset/ training days and another 2 years on furlough with double pay?
4 course meals for union reps and officers
51 week holiday
Maximum class size of 5
Maximum lessons per week 2
Scrapping academisation
OK you got me-the last one was a joke
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
To get a course called ‘you’re a twat if you vote Tory’ added to the mandatory curriculumWhat are they campaigning for? Shorter hours and more holidays? Or more inset/ training days and another 2 years on furlough with double pay?
Flying Fokker
Well-Known Member
It would have been better for the economy to drop the basic rate down to 15p, raise thresholds to 15k and reduce the higher rate by 1p.
Yeah, I don’t know why they haven’t shifted no tax at all to £15k+ as FF says
Surely it would’ve been a more useful and popular call than the scrapping of the 45p rate. If they needed to do anything with that ideologically why not just shift the band to say £250k so it’s probably just millionaires paying. At that level they probably wouldn’t be overly fussed paying the extra slice anyway
JAM See
Well-Known Member
There's the real leveler surely?
Helps literally everybody who works, and especially the lowest paid.
Don't know how to do the sums, but it seems the right thing to do.
JAM See
Well-Known Member
If you go for 3 lessons per week, P, P and E, you may well get the backing of the Tories.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'd have thought a VAT cut would have been an instant help to individuals and businesses alike. Yet out of all the tax cuts this government seems obsessed with that doesn't get a mention
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Hugely regressive mind as it give a tax cut to everyone regardless of household circumstances and income.
robbiekeane
Well-Known Member
Isn’t they inevitable though
JAM See
Well-Known Member
But it gives everybody earning £15k or above exactly the same benefit.
Not ideal but certainly better than looking after people who earn >£150k.
The other thing missing from the 'fiscal statement' was any help for the real strugglers in society (those on UC etc.)
I fucking despair at the ideology of the people running our wonderful country.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
No sums necessary just blind trust ask the new chancellor what unfunded means
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yep both and up the thresholds and if you’re giving billions away invest it in people or skills or opportunity
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What I don’t get is if you’re claim if you’re attracting investment why not use the tax system to give better breaks to those investing ?
Because it’s nothing to do with growth, it’s about enriching their mates.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
In theory we’ve doing that for years. We have the lowest taxes for businesses in the G7 apparently. Also the lowest investment rates in the G7. Taxes don’t seem to be the issue in attracting investment into the UK.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
rob why lie? you trying to be a poundland grenners?About £100 a month more in my pocket with income tax and NI reversal, which will offset the energy increase so all good. Ignore the moaners, thanks Kwasi
people talk about you
rob9872
Well-Known Member
Still living completely rent free
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Yeah
Really struggle with this mini budget from a personal perspective when I look at my Tax bill for the year it makes me want to cry. I know I should be super happy to fund all of the services but it's a bitter pill to take when I think what else I could do with that money. So I like paying less tax but if it isn't coming from me where is it coming from... I've also worked for a school and a council and saw the levels of waste that go on, its shocking seriously. The problem is reducing investment in councils etc won't make them more efficient so they cut services instead and keep some of the more bizarre practices that spaff money everywhere. The whole system needs a review I think the jump from 20-40% tax seems quite a hike that could potentially be smoothed out. Another form of waste is that PAYE stops being relevant for anyone earning over £102k pa as for each £2k over £100k you earn you lose £1k of your tax free personal allowance if this was reformed with the relevant tax % increases rather than being a stealth tax it would save a fortune in the processing of Self assessment forms for anyone over £100k on PAYE. I think the cut of the 45% tax band is also pretty daft as its such a small hike in comparison to the 20% hike further down the scale and could have been smoothed to remove the complicated stealth tax. Totally onboard with the Tax cut at basic rate but they could have just as easily moved the amount you could earn tax free up but they wanted to make a statement. Another thing I think should be looked at is more sharing of couples tax free allowance to give more optionality for one parent to stay at home etc.
Re the last bit.
I can't see any chance of that when they are coming up with scheme's to drive people back into the worplace.
Admittedly many will be more senior who have retired early etc or have some sort of portfolio which allows for this.
Nevertheless there will be a significant number who do Indeed wish for one parent to be at home and not working.
hill83
Well-Known Member
About £100 a month more in my pocket with income tax and NI reversal, which will offset the energy increase so all good. Ignore the moaners, thanks Kwasi
Whilst this is a joke, people genuinely do think like that. I’m over a £100 a month better off now, don’t need it.
This unfortunately isn’t the open goal for labour that’s being suggested.
It's a lot more rare these days but I have a few friends who's partners stop at home (mine works) and I have always thought tax should be on overall household income. May start to get some marriages of convenience etc but it would be great for some parents!
Of course the next big shock to come through the system will be with interest rates rising and the current UK average house price sitting at £303,000 first time buyers scraping together a 10% deposit with fixed term mortgage rates as low as 1.5% a few months ago would make their repayments £760 a month, not too shabby. We are now up to 3% which would raise repayments to £982. I don't see it stopping there, in 2008 interest rates were circa 6% after the last crash, that would spike repayments to £1509... £749 more than their last mortgage payments. Add on top of that cost of living and you better believe that is going to hurt the average house owner.
Blind-Faith
Well-Known Member
Reading on Twitter that the shortening of the pound has made quite a few people rich. Something to do with a hedge fund that our friend Kwasi has something to do with , surely he wouldn’t be looking after his own interests and would have the interests of the country at heart??
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
His former boss and personal sponsor by all accounts.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
People should be going to prison for this kind of shit.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Hope that can be proved and he gets locked up
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
There's a long queue of them who should be in the dock rather than power but there we go.
Think there are better and easier ways to make a fortune in politics than by tanking your own country’s reputation in the bond markets tbh.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
The thing is, no matter how you look at it it's full of holes.
One argument is that businesses having more money through lower tax creates jobs. That's total bollocks. Businesses will create jobs when there's demand for their product/service that requires them to take on staff to satisfy that demand. If people aren't getting more money, where is the demand coming from? It's not, so all that happens is business people trousers the tax saved in dividends. This has been proved - part of a U.S. state (Kansas, I believe) totally removed business taxes and rates in order to increase jobs. It created none and they ended up bankrupt. When asking the business people why they hadn't made new jobs their answer was simple. "We don't need any more workers."
Second argument is demand increase, in that rich people having money means they'll buy stuff and jobs will be created. If you want to increase demand, why not have lots more people spending in many different areas of the economy and creating more jobs? Why have 1 person buying one expensive car when you could have 10 people buying less expensive ones? You'll create more jobs.
It seems like the rationale is
1. Give rich people money
2. Rich people spend money
3. Jobs are created
4. Less affluent people have money and so spend money
5. This creates more jobs.
Well, we already ascertained there is not necessarily any link between 1 and 2, and that 2 to 3 has a limited effect.
So why not just start at point 4 and miss out all the tenuous shit above.
When even the President of the most capitalist country in the world is telling you trickle down doesn't work, you know you've got problems. But Dizzy Lizzy is so fixated on being Maggie she'll just keep on copying her.
One argument is that businesses having more money through lower tax creates jobs. That's total bollocks. Businesses will create jobs when there's demand for their product/service that requires them to take on staff to satisfy that demand. If people aren't getting more money, where is the demand coming from? It's not, so all that happens is business people trousers the tax saved in dividends. This has been proved - part of a U.S. state (Kansas, I believe) totally removed business taxes and rates in order to increase jobs. It created none and they ended up bankrupt. When asking the business people why they hadn't made new jobs their answer was simple. "We don't need any more workers."
Second argument is demand increase, in that rich people having money means they'll buy stuff and jobs will be created. If you want to increase demand, why not have lots more people spending in many different areas of the economy and creating more jobs? Why have 1 person buying one expensive car when you could have 10 people buying less expensive ones? You'll create more jobs.
It seems like the rationale is
1. Give rich people money
2. Rich people spend money
3. Jobs are created
4. Less affluent people have money and so spend money
5. This creates more jobs.
Well, we already ascertained there is not necessarily any link between 1 and 2, and that 2 to 3 has a limited effect.
So why not just start at point 4 and miss out all the tenuous shit above.
When even the President of the most capitalist country in the world is telling you trickle down doesn't work, you know you've got problems. But Dizzy Lizzy is so fixated on being Maggie she'll just keep on copying her.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
It's the same boom and bust strategy that we already know doesn't work because it's been attempted in the 1920s, 1980s and the 2000s. Right wing economics just does not work, how many more economic disasters do we need to go through before people realise?