How much longer will this bear market go on for?

Thumbs_Up

InvesterJones said:

Thumbs_Up said:

If the Tories call a snap election

If you currently had a majority of 80 or so, yet polls were predicting you'd lose an election called now.. would you call a snap election?

I don’t think you got the gist of my question so let me rephrase. Can Labour, if in power navigate SS Great Britain through these choppy seas to calmer waters?

But to answer your question No, that’s was the point of this mini-budget the so called big bazooka ( more like a Grand Slam to be honest*) was probably dream up in a cheap casino.

Ironically the genesis or genius of this mini-budget will probably grow to fruition long after the Tories have been booted out.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

 

sevenhills

Thumbs_Up said:

Ironically the genesis or genius of this mini-budget will probably grow to fruition long after the Tories have been booted out.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

You are not making sense to me. Is devaluing Sterling, massive debt and high interest rates part of the solution?

MK62

billy2shots said:

MK62 said:

Millyonare said:

MK62 said:

Millyonare said:

Type_45 said:

masonic said:

Type_45 said:

sevenhills said:

GSP said:

Quite agree with nearly all of this.

While they have just reversed some recent decisions, I would have liked them to go the whole or further hog than cutting tax by just 1p to 19p. If they really believed in what they are doing it should have gone down to 15p to ‘get things moving’.
It seems to me by just the 1p cut they are a ‘little scared’ what may happen.

I would like to buy camper van, but I don't because of the debt.
We may help our children get on the housing ladder, but they will be paying this governments debt.

"This government's debt"...  so all the people who supported these policies are going to absolve themselves from any responsibility?

I think we all know the answer to that. Best to think of it as the British taxpayer's debt.

British tax payer's debt which some people were dead against all the way through. 

Those who supported these policies must accept responsibility.

This is wartime-like spending.

UK has just been through a two-year war on covid, so extra govt debt is to be expected.

A lot of folks are massively overreacting to this new budget. No other G7 country in the world is raising taxes in the post-covid era. UK must not raise taxes. Cutting taxes, to give the people their own money back, is good.

Besides, the Truss giveaway is (much) less than we think. The 1-5% income tax cuts are going to be largely wiped out by the fiscal drag of the unchanged £12k and £100k tax allowances.

It certainly will be for the low paid.....maybe not for middle earners, and certainly not for high earners....

To be fair, the top 1% of earners already pay nearly 30% of all UK income tax. We can't go on punishing successful people forever.

Perhaps, but shifting the tax burden towards the lower paid, whilst in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis isn't going to be seen as "fair" by the majority......and certainly hasn't been seen as "responsible" by the powers that matter.

I didn't see anything that shifted the tax burden to lower earners in the mini budget. 

It's a different argument if you ask 'who came off best' but I didn't see more tax burden placed at anyone's feet. 

Under the current proposals, as they stand, someone on NLW (low earner) will see the total % of IT+NI (ie their tax burden) rise in April 2023 (assuming NLW is increased in line with inflation) while someone on 10x the NLW (high earner) will see their tax burden fall.......

billy2shots

MK62 said:

billy2shots said:

MK62 said:

Millyonare said:

MK62 said:

Millyonare said:

Type_45 said:

masonic said:

Type_45 said:

sevenhills said:

GSP said:

Quite agree with nearly all of this.

While they have just reversed some recent decisions, I would have liked them to go the whole or further hog than cutting tax by just 1p to 19p. If they really believed in what they are doing it should have gone down to 15p to ‘get things moving’.
It seems to me by just the 1p cut they are a ‘little scared’ what may happen.

I would like to buy camper van, but I don't because of the debt.
We may help our children get on the housing ladder, but they will be paying this governments debt.

"This government's debt"...  so all the people who supported these policies are going to absolve themselves from any responsibility?

I think we all know the answer to that. Best to think of it as the British taxpayer's debt.

British tax payer's debt which some people were dead against all the way through. 

Those who supported these policies must accept responsibility.

This is wartime-like spending.

UK has just been through a two-year war on covid, so extra govt debt is to be expected.

A lot of folks are massively overreacting to this new budget. No other G7 country in the world is raising taxes in the post-covid era. UK must not raise taxes. Cutting taxes, to give the people their own money back, is good.

Besides, the Truss giveaway is (much) less than we think. The 1-5% income tax cuts are going to be largely wiped out by the fiscal drag of the unchanged £12k and £100k tax allowances.

It certainly will be for the low paid.....maybe not for middle earners, and certainly not for high earners....

To be fair, the top 1% of earners already pay nearly 30% of all UK income tax. We can't go on punishing successful people forever.

Perhaps, but shifting the tax burden towards the lower paid, whilst in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis isn't going to be seen as "fair" by the majority......and certainly hasn't been seen as "responsible" by the powers that matter.

I didn't see anything that shifted the tax burden to lower earners in the mini budget. 

It's a different argument if you ask 'who came off best' but I didn't see more tax burden placed at anyone's feet. 

Under the current proposals, as they stand, someone on NLW (low earner) will see the total % of IT+NI (ie their tax burden) rise in April 2023 (assuming NLW is increased in line with inflation) while someone on 10x the NLW (high earner) will see their tax burden fall.......

You are assuming things and making comparisons again. 

You said the tax burden has been shifted to the lower earners.

Lower earners are in a better position now than a week ago. Forget comparisons and what may or may not come. 

The elephant in your room is that most tax is paid by a small percent of high earners. 
The tax burden actually is shouldered by those high earners. 

From the house if commons library

Individual taxpayers: income tax paid, by income

Income tax payments are concentrated amongst those with the largest incomes. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.

MK62

The actual level of tax one group pays is a different argument........if you reduce the tax paid by one group of taxpayers by more than you reduce it on other groups, then by definition the burden shifts......even if every group's total tax goes down, and the overall total reduces, if one group's percentage of the total changes, then their burden changes......
The 60% of tax which is paid by 10% of taxpayers means 40% is paid by the other 90% of taxpayers.......if you reduce the tax on that first 10% so that they are only paying 59% of the total, then the other 90% of taxpayers must, by definition be paying the other 41%.....so you've shifted the tax burden from one group to another.

As for low earners being in a better position now than a week ago, the NI reduction doesnt happen until November, and the income tax changes don't happen until April ....so comparing the situation of said low earners now, to what it will be in April seems entirely reasonable to me.....and the reality is that come April, under current proposals, they will likely be in a worse position than they are now, thanks to the chancellor's decision not to unfreeze the personal allowance (of course he could change his mind and do that in the March budget).

brasso

MK62 said:

The actual level of tax one group pays is a different argument........if you reduce the tax paid by one group of taxpayers by more than you reduce it on other groups, then by definition the burden shifts......even if every group's total tax goes down, and the overall total reduces, if one group's percentage of the total changes, then their burden changes......
The 60% of tax which is paid by 10% of taxpayers means 40% is paid by the other 90% of taxpayers.......if you reduce the tax on that first 10% so that they are only paying 59% of the total, then the other 90% of taxpayers must, by definition be paying the other 41%.....so you've shifted the tax burden from one group to another.

But the income tax changes announced are not a zero sum game i.e. reducing the income tax burden of one group hasn't shifted the payments to the other group -- the burden of both groups (as I understand it) are being reduced, with the shortfall coming from increased borrowing. Not a great policy IMO, as we'll all end up paying for the increased borrowing in the longer term.

billy2shots

MK62 said:

The actual level of tax one group pays is a different argument........if you reduce the tax paid by one group of taxpayers by more than you reduce it on other groups, then by definition the burden shifts......even if every group's total tax goes down, and the overall total reduces, if one group's percentage of the total changes, then their burden changes......
The 60% of tax which is paid by 10% of taxpayers means 40% is paid by the other 90% of taxpayers.......if you reduce the tax on that first 10% so that they are only paying 59% of the total, then the other 90% of taxpayers must, by definition be paying the other 41%.....so you've shifted the tax burden from one group to another.

As for low earners being in a better position now than a week ago, the NI reduction doesnt happen until November, and the income tax changes don't happen until April ....so comparing the situation of said low earners now, to what it will be in April seems entirely reasonable to me.....and the reality is that come April, under current proposals, they will likely be in a worse position than they are now, thanks to the chancellor's decision not to unfreeze the personal allowance (of course he could change his mind and do that in the March budget).

That view is what is totally wrong with our country. It's what newspapers and online outlets use as headlines to trick people into hating the successful, to enrage others into protesting and dividing our society. 

Those that earn more will pay more tax. Even if everyone paid a flat 20% tax rate. 

Having different tax rate thresholds only shifts that balance more. 

I have never been on a higher rate of tax but I feel those that are are often ridiculed for it. 
We love to criticise the successful, in sport, celebrity and every day life. 
Instead of twisting headlines we should celebrate success and encourage others to get there, not put some artificial blame on then. 

We have had a weekend worth of stories of poor lower rate earner this and poor Universal Credit claimant that swiftly followed by those horrid higher rate tax payers and how they may be better off from changes.   

The top 50 tax payers paid £3.7 billion in tax last year. 

That figure is enough to support 920,000 people receiving top rate universal credit.

Will we ever hear it put in those terms?

People try and be clever by putting words like 'shift' in front of the word burden. That's largely irrelevant. The biggest burden on tax falls on the higher earners, twisting words and sentences to fullfil an agenda doesn't change that fact. 

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just fed up with the bashing of people who have done well. We should all strive to max our potential, not be held back by fears of what keyboard warriors and headline writers might say about us. 

InvesterJones

Thumbs_Up said:

InvesterJones said:

Thumbs_Up said:

If the Tories call a snap election

If you currently had a majority of 80 or so, yet polls were predicting you'd lose an election called now.. would you call a snap election?

I don’t think you got the gist of my question so let me rephrase. Can Labour, if in power navigate SS Great Britain through these choppy seas to calmer waters?

What the market seem to be claiming as reason for choppiness is surprises, uncertainty and lack of costings/auditing etc. Any party that assures it will announce and cost plans properly will have a calming effect. Actual policy seems to be a more minor effect at the moment.

Type_45

IMF bail-out for the UK then... Bullish for stocks! 

InvesterJones

Regarding the elimination of the 45% bracket, this, and the banks bonus cap removal, are both pretty minor things in the grand scheme of numbers, but they both send powerful messages. I believe the intention was to entice city workers back to London, though I doubt it's enough to counter the outflow due to consequences from leaving the EU. However the policy has very bad optics at a time of severe cost-of-living difficulty and the fact it came out of the blue (and wasn't what city firms were asking for) has contributed to the market unease at government unpredictability.