Politics Today

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
45,339
Location
Hunkered down
If Liz Truss really isn’t bothered about making unpopular decisions, she should tell the country that those people with jobs and with money are going to have it a bit tougher than normal for the next two years or so, and that the bottom 20% or so of the country in terms of wealth and income are going to find it really tough, so we need to support them.

The wealthy will have to have two holidays a year instead of three or four, they’ll have to drop down a level or two with their olive oil and their whiskey, and they’ll have to accept that life is a mixture of good years and not as good years, and this is a time when they will have a ‘not as good’ year or two, but it’s nothing compared to the bottom 20% or so.

Then she should increase the PA to £25k for 12 months, remove VAT from energy bills for 12 months, increase universal credit and maybe also increase the 20% tax band by another £10k or £20k to help middle England. But leave the top rates as they are and leave the CT rate increase as it was first announced as everyone had already priced it in.

Not afraid of making unpopular decisions? Bollox, she’s just pandered to the wealthy. Her recent decisions will only be unpopular with the people who have very little, and she doesn’t care about that. Like someone has already said, it’ll be interesting to see the reactions in the former red wall constituencies.
You left out a new relief for betting losses ;)
 

Spanks

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
766
Sigh.

Read the ifs analysis. Only those above £155,000 will see a net benefit. I've posted the link twice now
But without it, they'd have been even worse off. Can't they just be satisfied with being less worse off?!?
 

Hermann

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
6,070
Obviously. 🙄
I was responding to AU’s point about firms not increasing wages, they are but it’s being wiped out by high inflation.
So you agree that businesses aren't raising wages by enough then?
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,666
Then you wouldn't have known what he was replying to. 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️
As you’re probably aware it’s hard sometimes to ignore someone if you view the thread on a device that isn’t logged in.
God knows I tried, but sometimes his ramblings just slipped through! 😁
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,666
Sigh.

Read the ifs analysis. Only those above £155,000 will see a net benefit. I've posted the link twice now
As I suggested to you earlier things might change in future fiscal events……

Responding, Mr Philp said the IFS analysis "involves speculation about what future budgets may do with the various tax thresholds".
"This wasn't a full budget - it didn't address the question of tax thresholds and I'm not going to get into speculation about what they might do in the future."
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
10,666
Right, so we wasted all that time to get back round to the fact you agree with AU. Zounds.
Absolutely not, AU said firms had not played their part in raising wages, wage growth is actually quite healthy.
Only when you adjust wages with an external factor like high supply side inflation does the problem come.
It’s all about context old boy. 😎
 
Top