Government Watch

I see Biden has totally rejected Truss’s economics.

He scorned the idea of “trickle down economics” saying something that most of us know.

It has never ever worked, and he is sick and tired of this approach.

It is a dead horse that the Tories keep flogging because it allows their wealthy friends to get even richer.

Biden is a president for the whole of USA

Truss is the PM for a small minority.

Biden is very unpopular now in the USA isn’t he? Kamala Harris his VP even more so and the midterms are coming up in six weeks. A worrying time for the Democrats.

As regards the mini budget here next week. I think the word ‘mini’ is a clue. The full autumn budget in November will be much more illuminating. Perhaps the hope is that things will show an upturn by then. Let’s hope so that would be encouraging news and might reflect well from changes being brought in next week.

I agree of course WW that trickle down policy is rubbish. We have to hope Truss/Kwarteng do much more for the country as a whole but with the state of global play at present it’s not going to be easy.

I bet Starmer feels he’s swerved a bullet right now. Bet he’s happy to wait and see how things pan out. I don’t blame him. What a time to be PM.
?

Let us call it what it really is, Robin Hood in reverse.
Rob, by taxation, the poor, give it in tax breaks to the already rich.

Well us pensioners are getting a 10% rise next April annsixty that should keep the wolf from the door for one faction of society. Let’s hope other vulnerable groups do well financially soon. Truss could call it ‘levelling up’.

If as hinted, Ms.Truss reverses the N.I. increase that will help the lower paid.

Capping energy costs for two years (predicted) will help all domestic users.

Capping energy for businesses, schools, hospitals for an initial 6 months (predicted) will help.

It’s far too early to condemn policies before we have the full facts surely?

Has it actually been announced that pensions will rise by 10%?
If so that is a very positive thing and I hope it is true.
The basic pension is very small.

Analyses in Guardian today by Larry Elliot.

Between 1979 when trickle down was introduced to 2005 when the Labour Government’s policies began to take affect the top 1% of earners income rose by 300% and the poorest rose by just 6%.

Reagan was a proponent of trickle down and during his presidency he cut taxes as well as raising spending on defence.. He left office with a three fold increase in government debt.

Truss, is, I believe also intending to increase spending on defence.

IMF say that governments should focus on policies that will directly help middle income and poor. This increases growth whereas focusing on helping the wealthy decreases growth.

annsixty

Has it actually been announced that pensions will rise by 10%?
If so that is a very positive thing and I hope it is true.
The basic pension is very small.

Yes that is what I’ve read.

GG

The cut in NI will help the poor by 74p per month

The cut in NI will help the rich by £93.00 per month.

I don't think any announcement has been made yet because it's based on September's CPI, which won't be known until next month. CPI actually went down slightly last month because fuel prices came down slightly. Nevertheless, food prices (and some others) continue to rise. If it comes down again, pensioners won't get 10%.

Whitewavemark2

GG

The cut in NI will help the poor by 74p per month

The cut in NI will help the rich by £93.00 per month.

The cut in NI won't help the very poorest at all because they don't earn enough to reach the threshold to pay it.

The rise in NI was to help the NHS and Social Care.

I would personally rather that it continued.

Capping energy costs will still mean quite a big increase.

?

Rees-Mogg was due to make an announcement today about the help being given to businesses.

He has decided to evade scrutiny in parliament and instead gone onto social media to make his announcement.

So any questions you might have will not be answered.

Tomorrow Coffey is due to outline her plans for the NHS.

I wonder if she will turn up.

Ok if the reversal of NI means so little to the poorest why was there such an outcry on here about the increase unfairly affecting the lower paid?

GrannyGravy13

Ok if the reversal of NI means so little to the poorest why was there such an outcry on here about the increase unfairly affecting the lower paid?

Did you really just ask that? Really?

The reversal of NI means so little to the poorest because they don't pay NI, or pay it in such small amounts that any reversal is negligible.

The increase unfairly affected the lower paid because as a percentage of their income, NI is more than it is for more highly paid people.

I don't understand economics at all but I can understand simple maths.

GrannyGravy13

Ok if the reversal of NI means so little to the poorest why was there such an outcry on here about the increase unfairly affecting the lower paid?

I didn't make an outcry about it. What was always unfair about it was that those whose income comes from work would pay it, whereas those whose income comes from rents or investments, etc wouldn't. I always felt that the increase should have been on income and other taxes, not NI.

It would also have affected pensioners who have to work because their alternative income is not high enough for them to live without working.

Volver is right. NI is capped, so the most highly paid pay a lower percentage than lower and middle earners.

We cross posted growstuff. Glad to see we agree.

Good job we’re not the ones sat around a Cabinet table ladies. With all the squabbling we’d never get anything done!

Just as an aside. Is there something a bit weird about Kwartang?Only there is footage showing him laughing and seemingly smirking and behaving very strangely at the Queen’s funeral.

Is it fake?

volver

GrannyGravy13

Ok if the reversal of NI means so little to the poorest why was there such an outcry on here about the increase unfairly affecting the lower paid?

Did you really just ask that? Really?

The reversal of NI means so little to the poorest because they don't pay NI, or pay it in such small amounts that any reversal is negligible.

The increase unfairly affected the lower paid because as a percentage of their income, NI is more than it is for more highly paid people.

I don't understand economics at all but I can understand simple maths.

There is absolutely no need to be so rude.

I do know about tax and N I thresholds.

I do know that there was an outcry on GN N & P threads regarding how the low paid would be unfairly penalised by having to pay this extra tax . Multiple posts quoting percentage of income paid in tax by low paid as opposed to the higher earners.

Now it is to be reversed suddenly it was never a problem in the first place ?