-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
From memory not the nanny. Something to do with non-specific additional services.
Maybe that was just in the Cato household though.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
From memory not the nanny. Something to do with non-specific additional services.
Maybe that was just in the Cato household though.
New meaning to non deductible deposit!
-
@pakman said in British Politics:
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
The 98% effective income tax rate was during the mid to late 1970s when Labour were in power.
The top rate of tax was 83% and there was a 15% "Investment income surcharge" on top of that.
Funnily enough, UK industry suffered from major underinvestment at the time - can't think why.
Against that I think one’s butler, housekeeper, chauffeur, nanny, etc. were fully deductible!
Don't think those things were deductible, but you could off-set things like interest on loans, life Assurance premiums etc, pension contributions etc. Company cars were almost untaxed.
Much easier to use a limited company to route earnings thru as well.
-
Just heard the last part of it. Very growth oriented. Sunak's a different sort of politician, isn't he? Big concern must be inflation and interest rises hitting the cost of government borrowing, but overall seems solid.
Starmer was simply awful. Tone deaf to the public mood, student politics quips and looking politically artless.
-
Thumbs down for that Tax & Spend Budget from me. Sunak was the first Chancellor to raise Corporation Tax since 1974 when Denis Healey promised to the squeeze the rich until the pips squeak.
The overall UK tax hit will be the highest since the late 1960s:
UK Growth will suffer from these tax hikes.
-
He did acknowledge that. He said 1% rise puts the cost up by 25billion annually. That is indeed an issue. However, we aren't alone with that.
Starmer was terrible and made himself come across completely thick. The only point he said which made sense, was that Sunak didn't mention NHS. Which he didn't.
To give a bit more context to others that care (if they exist), Sunak is going balls out on internal growth. He says companies have reserved huge stock piles of cash (they have) and he wants them to spend it. There are huge tax breaks if you spend. He's also setting up all sorts of initiatives for small businesses. With my wife setting one up, this is great news for us. The lack of hike on fuel & booze duty is also great as these are two of my favourite pastimes ....
What Starmer failed grasp (in my view) was any sort of depth to Sunak's proposals. He went on and on about failures on unemployment, business debt, hard times etc. He harked on about previous failures etc (which made no sense to me) and said Sunak said nothing about levelling up. Which was odd, as Sunak had mentioned levelling up about 20 times. The budget was basically this.
Sunak: Here is a fishing rod, fishing tackle, a whole bunch of lessons on how to fish, and pond full of fish. You will need to supply your own bait, and I know you already have lots of it.
Starmer: This wasn't what was needed. We needed a fish.Sorry Keir, I quite like you, but you've completely fucked this one up.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
He harked on about previous failures etc (which made no sense to me) and said Sunak said nothing about levelling up. Which was odd, as Sunak had mentioned levelling up about 20 times. The budget was basically this.
Captain Hindsight - can't help himself.
He just looks out of his depth.
-
@majorrage I've tried to like Keir Starmer (according to a mutual friend, he's a great guy) and he is an improvement on Corbyn the Mad (who wouldn't be), but he is very tough to listen to. He's like Ed Miliband but without the charisma........
Beyond being a pro-NHS movement, UK Labour looks done. With the Tories shifting left and doing all they can to hit the productive bits of the UK economy to reward their new chums in the old Red Wall constituencies, there's big ground now opened for a pro-business, pro-supply side UK political movement.
-
@sparky said in British Politics:
I've tried to like Keir Starmer (according to a mutual friend, he's a great guy) and he is an improvement on Corbyn the Mad (who wouldn't be), but he is very tough to listen to. He's like Ed Miliband but without the charisma........
Starmer needs to be more himself then. Miliband could at least smile & laugh in public - Starmer sounds and looks plain weird at times.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
He harked on about previous failures etc (which made no sense to me) and said Sunak said nothing about levelling up. Which was odd, as Sunak had mentioned levelling up about 20 times. The budget was basically this.
Captain Hindsight - can't help himself.
He just looks out of his depth.
Been saying this for months
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
Sunak: Here is a fishing rod, fishing tackle, a whole bunch of lessons on how to fish, and pond full of fish. You will need to supply your own bait, and I know you already have lots of it.
Starmer: This wasn't what was needed. We needed a fish.Best analogy I've heard for many a year.
-
I understand why economically and morally it might be considered a good idea to support the poor by taxing the rich. It is an idea that goes back to Robin Hood and beyond.
But at the heart of Sunak's budget is the very different idea of supporting bad, unprofitable businesses & penalising good, profitable ones through higher Corporation Taxes. How does that make any long-term economic sense? Aren't you essentially trying to prevent the creative destruction that is at the heart of capitalism? Isn't it a recipe for encouraging profitable businesses that can to move abroad? Isn't a sure-fire way to make your economy less competitive and dynamic over time?
Profitable, successful businesses should be celebrated as they encourage more exchange and make us all (to a degree) richer. You can spread the wealth once it hits the hands of individuals who have enough or more than enough already if need be.
-
@sparky said in British Politics:
I understand why economically and morally it might be considered a good idea to support the poor by taxing the rich. It is an idea that goes back to Robin Hood and beyond.
But at the heart of Sunak's budget is the very different idea of supporting bad, unprofitable businesses & penalising good, profitable ones through higher Corporation Taxes. How does that make any long-term economic sense? Aren't you essentially trying to prevent the creative destruction that is at the heart of capitalism? Isn't it a recipe for encouraging profitable businesses that can to move abroad? Isn't a sure-fire way to make your economy less competitive and dynamic over time?
Profitable, successful businesses should be celebrated as they encourage more exchange and make us all (to a degree) richer. You can spread the wealth once it hits the hands of individuals who have enough or more than enough already if need be.
The second two paragraphs should have been word for word Keir's response.
I guess it depends on how other countries react. I think Sunak should already be aware of how larger companies will react. If he isn't, then he isn't doing his job properly.
British Politics