8 ms·

didn’t the UK prime minister Liz Truss just pass tax cuts for the rich? And isn’t the UK in a massive recession right now with a heating crisis expected this wi

didn’t the UK prime minister Liz Truss just pass tax cuts for the rich? And isn’t the UK in a massive recession right now with a heating crisis expected this winter? And wasn’t Liz Truss sworn in somewhere like, less than a month ago (expecting she won’t stay elected for long with the way things are going)?

citizenkeen 4y ago
This is a lot of the UK’s first time in a D/s relationship, and it’s going to hurt.
- sfvegandude 4y ago
  Dom/Sub?
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    It's a reference to the fact that Liz truss wears a necklace that's very similar to a day collar, typically worn by submissives. A necklace with an o on the front is a signal to some folks.
cjbgkagh 4y ago
I imagine people don’t think it’s maintainable and a reaction to it might be quite anti-business. I.e. it’s a drop in stability.
sp332 4y ago
Yes, tax cuts that were to be funded by going into a lot of debt. [Deleted the vacation bit]
- gonzo41 4y ago
  I cannot imagine the King is happy with that. Not a good way to start.
  - monk_e_boy 4y ago
    The king is worth billions, I doubt he gives a shit.
    - djbusby 4y ago
      So, he could use his money to help his country?
      - lmm 4y ago
        Why would he bother?
      - sp332 4y ago
        Part of the king's job is legitimizing the aristocracy. He's not going to point out that a restribution of wealth would be good for the country.
retinaros 4y ago
might not be totally bad as many rich might consider moving away from uk to switzerland or usa. that might be a good way to keep uk attractive for them on short term
- mellosouls 4y ago
  On the other hand, if the rich want to leave the UK because of tax, I'll happily help them carry their bags to the airport.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  If they're not paying for anything enough to keep things afloat (as their currency, government services, and now pensions are having a hard time doing right now...) it doesn't matter if they're there or not – they're just plundering the ship and crowding the lifeboats.
  - charlieyu1 4y ago
    government services need to be more efficient, they are spending taxpayers' money after all
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Government services need to be effective, not efficient. If increasing efficiency reduces effectiveness, as it sometimes does, then we're going to rapidly enter a cycle of "make it more efficient! The service doesn't meet our needs! It's costing too much for what we're getting! Make it more efficient!" Many public services eventually get asked to be revenue neutral, which kills their value, which leads to people saying things like, "See! Public transit is a waste!"
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    rich people are still very much net contributors. cutting the top tax rate will still leave them paying a high tax rate on a large income. if the choice is some super-rich people money and no super-rich people money it seems smart to choose "some".
wyager 4y ago
Are you trying to imply that those are straightforwardly causally related?
hanoz 4y ago
The "tax cuts for the rich" aspect of the mini budget was miniscule (and possibly not even a net loss of tax revenue) compared to the absolutely massive borrowing-funded subsidy of fuel costs this year, on top of the unbelievably colossal spending on the lockdown, all coming at the end of decades of generally living beyond our means. The only mistake the this new Government made was to drop the facade that we were ever good for the money.
- samizdis 4y ago
  > The "tax cuts for the rich" aspect of the mini budget was miniscule In the grand scheme of things, that is true. However, that isn't the only issue - and public perceptions count. Here's how it's put in an article [1] in the Economist: > Cutting taxes is the politically easy bit of a growth plan, in other words. But by needlessly cutting the top rate of tax on the highest earners and whacking homeowners with higher mortgage payments, the government has associated growth with unfairness in the public mind. That impression will strengthen as Ms Truss slashes public spending to regain market confidence. [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/28/how-not-to-run-a-country https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/28/how-not-to-run-...
  - hanoz 4y ago
    Not surprised to see the the whining over-mortgaged home "owners", who've had it far too good for decades, at the expense of priced out renters, cited as victims in this riposte. Seems to be a common theme in the wall of media-driven protest against this turning of the economic tide.
    - sph 4y ago
      You can hear the worlds tiniest violin playing from my rented London flat. Can't wait to see the housing market crash to through the floor.
      - onion2k 4y ago
        Can't wait to see the housing market crash to through the floor. If this happens then private equity funded businesses will sweep in and buy as many houses as possible, for cash with no upward chain and no mortgage issues. You can't compete with that; a serious price crash will probably lock you out of home ownership forever. There are already companies doing this. A crash will accelerate it. Eg https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-hous...
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
The tax-cuts-for-the-rich aspect of this is bad PR, but removing the 45% rate probably only costs the public purse about £2bn a year; the real problem is energy subsidy expected to cost £60bn over the next six months.
- lossolo 4y ago
  Isn't it 60 billion for private citizens, another 60 billion for companies and 45 billion for tax cuts, so 165 billion pounds and everything financed from new debt.
  - makomk 4y ago
    Yes and no. The £45 billion a year figure is how much the tax cuts will supposedly cost in some future tax year - 2025/6 or 2026/7 or sometime around then, well after the next general election. Also, I'm pretty sure most of that is from foregone tax increases that would've happened under the previous plans - both a direct increase in corporation tax planned for 2023 originally and a bunch of people moving into higher income tax bands through inflation decreasing the real value of the income tax thresholds. Of course, because those figures are in 2026 or whatever pounds and the cost of the energy subsidies are incurred much earlier than that, you also can't directly compare them because of inflation.
- switch007 4y ago
  £2bn is the government’s figure. Not everyone agrees. Plus there are the other tax changes The IFS reckons the total tax changes will amount to £45bn/yr https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response
- sph 4y ago
  Yeah, it's only £2bn a year, the state can afford it. It's not bad PR, it's a bad idea on top of a massively catastrophic idea.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  That borrowing was known well before the mini budget and didn't spook the markets. I don't think the tax cuts for the rich really bothered the market either (bad politics, but small amounts of money relatively). The real issue as far as I can see was that none of it was costed and they had no analysis by the OBR. It just looked entirely shady and planned on a napkin.
switch007 4y ago
The government announced their proposed budget. It hasn’t passed a Bill yet so it isn’t law

citizenkeen 4y ago

This is a lot of the UK’s first time in a D/s relationship, and it’s going to hurt.

sfvegandude 4y ago
Dom/Sub?
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's a reference to the fact that Liz truss wears a necklace that's very similar to a day collar, typically worn by submissives. A necklace with an o on the front is a signal to some folks.

cjbgkagh 4y ago

I imagine people don’t think it’s maintainable and a reaction to it might be quite anti-business. I.e. it’s a drop in stability.

sp332 4y ago

Yes, tax cuts that were to be funded by going into a lot of debt. [Deleted the vacation bit]

gonzo41 4y ago
I cannot imagine the King is happy with that. Not a good way to start.
- monk_e_boy 4y ago
  The king is worth billions, I doubt he gives a shit.
  - djbusby 4y ago
    So, he could use his money to help his country?
    - lmm 4y ago
      Why would he bother?
    - sp332 4y ago
      Part of the king's job is legitimizing the aristocracy. He's not going to point out that a restribution of wealth would be good for the country.

retinaros 4y ago

might not be totally bad as many rich might consider moving away from uk to switzerland or usa. that might be a good way to keep uk attractive for them on short term

mellosouls 4y ago
On the other hand, if the rich want to leave the UK because of tax, I'll happily help them carry their bags to the airport.
thebradbain 4y ago
If they're not paying for anything enough to keep things afloat (as their currency, government services, and now pensions are having a hard time doing right now...) it doesn't matter if they're there or not – they're just plundering the ship and crowding the lifeboats.
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  government services need to be more efficient, they are spending taxpayers' money after all
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Government services need to be effective, not efficient. If increasing efficiency reduces effectiveness, as it sometimes does, then we're going to rapidly enter a cycle of "make it more efficient! The service doesn't meet our needs! It's costing too much for what we're getting! Make it more efficient!" Many public services eventually get asked to be revenue neutral, which kills their value, which leads to people saying things like, "See! Public transit is a waste!"
- collegeburner 4y ago
  rich people are still very much net contributors. cutting the top tax rate will still leave them paying a high tax rate on a large income. if the choice is some super-rich people money and no super-rich people money it seems smart to choose "some".

wyager 4y ago

Are you trying to imply that those are straightforwardly causally related?

hanoz 4y ago

The "tax cuts for the rich" aspect of the mini budget was miniscule (and possibly not even a net loss of tax revenue) compared to the absolutely massive borrowing-funded subsidy of fuel costs this year, on top of the unbelievably colossal spending on the lockdown, all coming at the end of decades of generally living beyond our means. The only mistake the this new Government made was to drop the facade that we were ever good for the money.

samizdis 4y ago
> The "tax cuts for the rich" aspect of the mini budget was miniscule In the grand scheme of things, that is true. However, that isn't the only issue - and public perceptions count. Here's how it's put in an article [1] in the Economist: > Cutting taxes is the politically easy bit of a growth plan, in other words. But by needlessly cutting the top rate of tax on the highest earners and whacking homeowners with higher mortgage payments, the government has associated growth with unfairness in the public mind. That impression will strengthen as Ms Truss slashes public spending to regain market confidence. [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/28/how-not-to-run-a-country https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/28/how-not-to-run-...
- hanoz 4y ago
  Not surprised to see the the whining over-mortgaged home "owners", who've had it far too good for decades, at the expense of priced out renters, cited as victims in this riposte. Seems to be a common theme in the wall of media-driven protest against this turning of the economic tide.
  - sph 4y ago
    You can hear the worlds tiniest violin playing from my rented London flat. Can't wait to see the housing market crash to through the floor.
    - onion2k 4y ago
      Can't wait to see the housing market crash to through the floor. If this happens then private equity funded businesses will sweep in and buy as many houses as possible, for cash with no upward chain and no mortgage issues. You can't compete with that; a serious price crash will probably lock you out of home ownership forever. There are already companies doing this. A crash will accelerate it. Eg https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-houses-investment-firms-real-estate.html https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-hous...

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

The tax-cuts-for-the-rich aspect of this is bad PR, but removing the 45% rate probably only costs the public purse about £2bn a year; the real problem is energy subsidy expected to cost £60bn over the next six months.

lossolo 4y ago
Isn't it 60 billion for private citizens, another 60 billion for companies and 45 billion for tax cuts, so 165 billion pounds and everything financed from new debt.
- makomk 4y ago
  Yes and no. The £45 billion a year figure is how much the tax cuts will supposedly cost in some future tax year - 2025/6 or 2026/7 or sometime around then, well after the next general election. Also, I'm pretty sure most of that is from foregone tax increases that would've happened under the previous plans - both a direct increase in corporation tax planned for 2023 originally and a bunch of people moving into higher income tax bands through inflation decreasing the real value of the income tax thresholds. Of course, because those figures are in 2026 or whatever pounds and the cost of the energy subsidies are incurred much earlier than that, you also can't directly compare them because of inflation.
switch007 4y ago
£2bn is the government’s figure. Not everyone agrees. Plus there are the other tax changes The IFS reckons the total tax changes will amount to £45bn/yr https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response
sph 4y ago
Yeah, it's only £2bn a year, the state can afford it. It's not bad PR, it's a bad idea on top of a massively catastrophic idea.
MattPalmer1086 4y ago
That borrowing was known well before the mini budget and didn't spook the markets. I don't think the tax cuts for the rich really bothered the market either (bad politics, but small amounts of money relatively). The real issue as far as I can see was that none of it was costed and they had no analysis by the OBR. It just looked entirely shady and planned on a napkin.

switch007 4y ago

The government announced their proposed budget. It hasn’t passed a Bill yet so it isn’t law