Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[Wombat3]

Rufus Stone said:

119 said:

Who are his ‘chosen beneficeries’?

I don’t see anything mentioned in this article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwgd1ngn8xo

Those paying employee NI.

As long as they don't compensate by raising employers NI (i.e. increase the risks & costs of employing people) I'm not sure why that's such an issue given the need to encourage people to stay in the work-place?

It also levels the playing field a bit between the salaried and the self-employed (i.e. those that avoid NI by paying themselves dividends)

Those would appear to be the driver behind the idea, so why are they bad ?

[turbobloke]

Killboy said:

So its safer just to scream "virtue signalling" at every opportunity?

Every? Unsupported generalisation. Scream? Expected hyperbole. As to 'safer', ho ho ho.

No, just where it's appropriate. Are you aiming to be censorious by trying to prevent speech you don't like, surely not.

[S600BSB]

turbobloke said:

S600BSB said:

Rufus Stone said:

So Hunt apparently wants to grant further tax reductions to his chosen beneficiaries again in the autumn, while likely ignoring all other individual and corporate tax payers.

Loving the fair society Jeremy.

Just desperate.

Surely if Hunt & Co were desperate they'd do a Corbyn and give 'free' stuff away to lots of people rather than a few mates. The announcement included mention of his Shadow (Reeves) with regard to household tax levels and NI abolition, so in that regard his claimed cuts look likely to help the average Jo/Joe.

Don’t believe a word they say. We all know after the last 5 years that the Cons are the party of super high taxation/ high, wasteful spending. It’s probably why the polls suggest that the public now trust Labour on the economy rather than the Cons.

[Unreal]

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

S600BSB said:

Rufus Stone said:

So Hunt apparently wants to grant further tax reductions to his chosen beneficiaries again in the autumn, while likely ignoring all other individual and corporate tax payers.

Loving the fair society Jeremy.

Just desperate.

Surely if Hunt & Co were desperate they'd do a Corbyn and give 'free' stuff away to lots of people rather than a few mates. The announcement included mention of his Shadow (Reeves) with regard to household tax levels and NI abolition, so in that regard his claimed cuts look likely to help the average Jo/Joe.

Don’t believe a word they say. We all know after the last 5 years that the Cons are the party of super high taxation/ high, wasteful spending. It’s probably why the polls suggest that the public now trust Labour on the economy rather than the Cons.

It must be stressful and perpetually disappointing for anyone that believes politicians of any persuasion.

They are a class so dominated by self serving individuals that are part of an entrenched party system that any honest ones don't have a hope of making a difference.

Two sides of the same coin.

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Killboy said:

So its safer just to scream "virtue signalling" at every opportunity?

Every? Unsupported generalisation. Scream? Expected hyperbole. As to 'safer', ho ho ho.

No, just where it's appropriate. Are you aiming to be censorious by trying to prevent speech you don't like, surely not.

Is anyone trying the prevent people using the term?

[Rufus Stone]

Wombat3 said:

As long as they don't compensate by raising employers NI (i.e. increase the risks & costs of employing people) I'm not sure why that's such an issue given the need to encourage people to stay in the work-place?

It also levels the playing field a bit between the salaried and the self-employed (i.e. those that avoid NI by paying themselves dividends)

Those would appear to be the driver behind the idea, so why are they bad ?

Taxation should be fair and reasonable, and perceived as such. Workers have already benefited from a 4% reduction in tax. Ignoring all other tax payers to benefit workers yet again is unfair.

Granting tax reductions to a certain section of society is just as bad as imposing tax increases on a certain section of society.

And self-employed don't get paid in dividends.

[Killboy]

Dagnir said:

A woman named Jessica with pronouns in her signature is virtue signalling. It's a pledge of allegiance to the ideology to show how progressive you are.

Is it only women named Jessica? What are these Jessicas gender identity?

Are you perhaps just virtue signalling?

[Killboy]

turbobloke said:

Every? Unsupported generalisation. Scream? Expected hyperbole. As to 'safer', ho ho ho.

No, just where it's appropriate. Are you aiming to be censorious by trying to prevent speech you don't like, surely not.

Where am I preventing free speech? Talk about hyperbole.

[captain_cynic]

Killboy said:

Where am I preventing free speech? Talk about hyperbole.

He means his version of "freeze peach".

The kind where he gets to say whatever he wants and has complete immunity from criticism. You know, that kind of free speech where no one is permitted to contradict him.

[shed driver]

Just to lighten up the thread!

SD.

[Wombat3]

Rufus Stone said:

Wombat3 said:

As long as they don't compensate by raising employers NI (i.e. increase the risks & costs of employing people) I'm not sure why that's such an issue given the need to encourage people to stay in the work-place?

It also levels the playing field a bit between the salaried and the self-employed (i.e. those that avoid NI by paying themselves dividends)

Those would appear to be the driver behind the idea, so why are they bad ?

Taxation should be fair and reasonable, and perceived as such. Workers have already benefited from a 4% reduction in tax. Ignoring all other tax payers to benefit workers yet again is unfair.

Granting tax reductions to a certain section of society is just as bad as imposing tax increases on a certain section of society.

And self-employed don't get paid in dividends.

Ok, but the tax system (much like sales commission plans in a business) is used to drive behaviour. Its entirely logical to use it that way.

For self-employed, read small business owners (the self employed also pay minimal NI anyway I think).

I'm in that small business owner camp so it would not benefit me at all but I don't have an issue with it.

The bottom line is that it does not benefit pensioners or those relying on un-earned/passive income.

On the other hand, dividend income, interest payments, pension income/drawdown & annuities etc are already exempt from NI so really this is just bringing taxation on earned income back towards that on unearned. Dividend income is also taxed at much lower rates to start with.

Overall I think its no bad thing to reduce it & its being used as a tool to keep people in the workplace which is sensible.

Its double taxation anyway (what you pay in NI is still subject to income tax) which is never a good thing IMO.

It also stops/highlights the Gordon Brown sleight of hand nonsense when he raised NI having committed to not raising taxes.

[Rufus Stone]

Higher personal allowance and/or lower basic rate tax would also encourage people into work and benefit more tax payers.

[Dagnir]

Killboy said:

Is it only women named Jessica? What are these Jessicas gender identity?

Are you perhaps just virtue signalling?

[bitchstewie]

And more sthouse behaviour.

Tory peer Kulveer Range faces Parliament ban over drunken outburst

[Rufus Stone]

bhstewie said:

And more sthouse behaviour.

Tory peer Kulveer Range faces Parliament ban over drunken outburst

Grubby?

[Wombat3]

Rufus Stone said:

Higher personal allowance and/or lower basic rate tax would also encourage people into work and benefit more tax payers.

...and cost a lot more.

Given the availability of limited funds it seems sensible to target them where they will do the most to drive the behaviour you want.

If you spread the same funds over a wider number it follows that those you want to target are going to get less than a meaningful amount.

As above, I don't think he's wrong with this one considering what they are trying to achieve. Given that so much is exempt from NI already, I don't think its unfair either, quite the reverse.

[Rufus Stone]

Wombat3 said:

...and cost a lot more.

No it wouldn't. He uses the money available (not that there is any in reality) to offer a tax cut to a wider base. Yes, his favoured beneficiaries would get less but they have had 4% already and everyone else has had 0%. Don't forget his favouritism hasn't benefited the Tories in the polling.

[Wombat3]

Rufus Stone said:

Wombat3 said:

...and cost a lot more.

No it wouldn't. He uses the money available (not that there is any in reality) to offer a tax cut to a wider base. Yes, his favoured beneficiaries would get less but they have had 4% already and everyone else has had 0%. Don't forget his favouritism hasn't benefited the Tories in the polling.

4% from a base of already paying 10+% more....

As I said, all this is doing is bringing the taxation levels for earned income back towards those for unearned income. Why is that unfair?

[Rufus Stone]

Wombat3 said:

4% from a base of already paying 10+% more....

As I said, all this is doing is bringing the taxation levels for earned income back towards those for unearned income. Why is that unfair?

If NI is so unfair perhaps Hunt should offer a refund to all those who have paid it for the past 40 years odd?

[S600BSB]

bhstewie said:

And more sthouse behaviour.

Tory peer Kulveer Range faces Parliament ban over drunken outburst

How awful.