4 ms·

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

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.

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.