How much longer will this bear market go on for?

Thumbs_Up

coastline said:

Labour conference: Rachel Reeves pledges to spend top rate tax on more nurses - BBC News

Oh great, does that mean we are going to plunder the 3rd world again?

When this policy was started years ago the nurses had to have a good command of English, not sure that is mandatory today.

InvesterJones

Thumbs_Up said:

coastline said:

Labour conference: Rachel Reeves pledges to spend top rate tax on more nurses - BBC News

Oh great, does that mean we are going to plunder the 3rd world again?

When this policy was started years ago the nurses had to have a good command of English, not sure that is mandatory today.

Non-EU migrant workers have increased greatly under the current party. Perhaps if we had better agreements with the EU we'd have a more EU than non-EU migrant work force, but also it'd be great to put more money into training and standards so that we attracted and skilled more local NHS workers too.

sevenhills

InvesterJones said:

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.

It also sends a message to the electorate at a time of hardship. Not a good move with a general election quite soon. The general public don't read details, it's all about these messages.

Type_45

The S&P 500 just took out it's June low.

June low was 3636. Just dipped to 3626.

Swipe

Wooohooo Party in the Type_45 household. Pop the champagne corks

Type_45

Dow 29,000 broken.

mooneysaver

SFM also at a 3 month low: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/safemoon-v2/

Unprecedented gets thrown around a lot, but no one could have predicted a sell-off of this magnitude.

Type_45

mooneysaver said:

SFM also at a 3 month low: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/safemoon-v2/

Unprecedented gets thrown around a lot, but no one could have predicted a sell-off of this magnitude.

Is someone gonna tell 'em?

MK62

brasso said:

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.

Actually it won't......thanks to the freeze on the personal allowance and current inflation, low income groups will see their overall tax rate increase, while high earners will see theirs fall.

MK62

billy2shots said:

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.

Apart from yourself, nobody mentioned anything about hating the successful or dividing society......tbh this sounds like its straight from the Daily Mail......

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.

It's a (mostly) progressive tax system......

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.

Nobody is ridiculing or criticising higher rate taxpayers, or twisting any headlines. Do the math....look beyond the headline of "tax cut" and see what it really means for lower earners, as the current proposals stand.