How Depressing!

[WBA123]

Not going to worry about the budget to much, I can?t change it. Not sure anyone can or will, at least in the short term. There is not one party out there that has the ability to change things. We want more spent on defence etc. the roads are in a mess, environmental issues with rivers and none one is grasping the underlying issues. There are so many issues that are wrong it does not bear thinking about.

The lower paid will likely take the brunt of it. There are already so many living below the poverty line it is shocking in this day and age. Who would want to be a politician. Not me.

It would be nice if we had a government, any government that prioritised growth.

I read somewhere that this budget is expected to cost us anything up to 0.5% of our GDP. Why?

We smash higher earners and businesses, but long term this doesn't trickle down to the poorest in society. The high earners leave and business becomes uncompetitive in this country.

A long term vision would be to try and increase average wages, to promote foreign companies investing in the UK, to incentivise SME businesses and entrepreneurs.

Does increasing NI contributions on employers do this? Nope.

Unfortunately, our prominent political parties put business growth right at the back of their agenda. And yes, I include Reform in that too. They are much more concerned about being voted in at the next election, or fighting for their political survival (as Starmer is apparently doing right now). This is all a cycle and means the country just progressively becomes poorer.

We lost 277k people last year to emigration. Let's be honest, they're probably the higher earners. And what is keeping them here? Move abroad and there is less crime, better weather and far less tax. Their standard of living will increase. Its almost a win-win all round.

[baggieal]

It would be nice if we had a government, any government that prioritised growth.

I read somewhere that this budget is expected to cost us anything up to 0.5% of our GDP. Why?

We smash higher earners and businesses, but long term this doesn't trickle down to the poorest in society. The high earners leave and business becomes uncompetitive in this country.

A long term vision would be to try and increase average wages, to promote foreign companies investing in the UK, to incentivise SME businesses and entrepreneurs.

Does increasing NI contributions on employers do this? Nope.

Unfortunately, our prominent political parties put business growth right at the back of their agenda. And yes, I include Reform in that too. They are much more concerned about being voted in at the next election, or fighting for their political survival (as Starmer is apparently doing right now). This is all a cycle and means the country just progressively becomes poorer.

We lost 277k people last year to emigration. Let's be honest, they're probably the higher earners. And what is keeping them here? Move abroad and there is less crime, better weather and far less tax. Their standard of living will increase. It’s almost a win-win all round.

Totally correct 123. Every large blue chip company that gets taxed more ie NI contributions will pass this on to the consumer. I know one large blue chip company ready to press the button this Weds in the event of from a director who works there.

Only those with wealth will have emigrated as you say as in many countries only considerably wealth will buy a residents permit etc. Sadly Brexit stopped working or living in the EU now unless you have a large sum of cash or a business that turns over XYZ employing locals.

My daughter has just received her number one university offer for Kings College and one year of the four is compulsory to study at a top uni in the USA. I have told her to jump at the opportunity to taste overseas life.

The main beneficiaries will be those on universal credit especially if they scrap the child two child benefit as you rightly said. Sad but true.

Keep taxing the rich and they will go overseas 100%

[On Balance]

It would be nice if we had a government, any government that prioritised growth.

I read somewhere that this budget is expected to cost us anything up to 0.5% of our GDP. Why?

We smash higher earners and businesses, but long term this doesn't trickle down to the poorest in society. The high earners leave and business becomes uncompetitive in this country.

A long term vision would be to try and increase average wages, to promote foreign companies investing in the UK, to incentivise SME businesses and entrepreneurs.

Does increasing NI contributions on employers do this? Nope.

Unfortunately, our prominent political parties put business growth right at the back of their agenda. And yes, I include Reform in that too. They are much more concerned about being voted in at the next election, or fighting for their political survival (as Starmer is apparently doing right now). This is all a cycle and means the country just progressively becomes poorer.

We lost 277k people last year to emigration. Let's be honest, they're probably the higher earners. And what is keeping them here? Move abroad and there is less crime, better weather and far less tax. Their standard of living will increase. Its almost a win-win all round.

Just looked at the emigration figures 123, that is quite shocking.

I agree with much of what you are saying. As you say no party comes up with anything to stop the decline. They are so busy knocking each other they appear to lose vision of what they are there to do or perhaps they are that inept they just don’t have a clue as to what to do. In effect they keep doing the same thing over and over again.

All parties have failed for decades and yes, as you indicate, not one of them have seriously implemented change.

Your last sentence does make one think about the benefits of getting out. However, I guess there will be some downsides to doing so in reality.

[regis80]

Tesco's pre-tax profit for the 12 months to February 2023 was approximately £1 billion, which was less than half of the previous year's profit. More recently, the company is forecasting annual profits of £2.9bn to £3.1bn for the year to February 2026.

Above copy pasted from Google.

So companies are making some dosh, whose pockets are being lined up? Nothing against tesco, but apply this logic to companies not paying their bit. Where is the money going?

I’m sure last time the inflation was caused by people buying more bread and chocolates, surely our economics model is broken. Also why are we paying £50B in interest to banks for money printed? When this rate of interest could be reduced?

If anyone wants to leave should be allowed to leave, they can take their business elsewhere- but please leave your passport behind - you ain’t being allowed back in.

The problem with tax increases - they never tell you for how long for? They can’t even calculate how many years it would take to get out the mess. Why not? I find this bizzare. Suppose the debt, or amount to bring us back to a certain level was £100B.. as a one off - surely as a proposal/truce the gov says we all need to chip in for this one off payment. A real truce to avoid tax increases - reason it won’t happen is because the whole thing about the debt is probably a lie.

[WBA123]

Tesco's pre-tax profit for the 12 months to February 2023 was approximately £1 billion, which was less than half of the previous year's profit. More recently, the company is forecasting annual profits of £2.9bn to £3.1bn for the year to February 2026.

Above copy pasted from Google.

So companies are making some dosh, whose pockets are being lined up? Nothing against tesco, but apply this logic to companies not paying their bit. Where is the money going?

I’m sure last time the inflation was caused by people buying more bread and chocolates, surely our economics model is broken. Also why are we paying £50B in interest to banks for money printed? When this rate of interest could be reduced?

If anyone wants to leave should be allowed to leave, they can take their business elsewhere- but please leave your passport behind - you ain’t being allowed back in.

The problem with tax increases - they never tell you for how long for? They can’t even calculate how many years it would take to get out the mess. Why not? I find this bizzare. Suppose the debt, or amount to bring us back to a certain level was £100B.. as a one off - surely as a proposal/truce the gov says we all need to chip in for this one off payment. A real truce to avoid tax increases - reason it won’t happen is because the whole thing about the debt is probably a lie.

Hello Regis, been a while and hope you're keeping well.

In terms of this, Tesco's profit margin is 2%. Yes they make a lot of profit in terms of the figures, but looking at their margin I wouldn't exactly call 2% profiteering. Its a well run company that is absolutely huge in this country.

And as for people leaving, I'm on the opposite side of the fence. We need to incentivise high earners and entrepreneurs to stay. We want these people paying to stay to pay tax and help grow the economy. The more that tax is increased the less it incentivises them to stay.

What we need to look at is what will actually net us the most of tax received? It might mean more competitive corporation tax rates, or decreasing the top rate of tax. I read somewhere that the most amount of corporation tax received by the Govt was when it was at its lowest, at 19%. This entices foreign companies in to invest in this country and create jobs. It gives smaller business directors more available cash to invest or spend in the economy.

We already have a progressive tax system, which is the way it should be. But its starting to favour the lower earners now. A 20k salary means you are paying around 10% in tax, but a 200k salary is around 42% in tax. We are penalising people from earning more and paying more in tax once they hit particular thresholds, which is wrong.

The whole tax system needs a complete overhaul. Its not fit for purpose anymore.

[WBA123]

I've taken this from London Evening Standard by the way......

This guy is happy to pay income tax here and was a major supporter of charitable causes including Oxford University, 2012 Olympic Games, Public Libraries and donating £15m to Great Ormand Street Hospital. How does this benefit the UK?

Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal has become the latest billionaire to leave the UK in response to Labour's tax reforms for the super wealthy.

Mittal, 75, currently has an estimated personal fortune of £15.4bn and has resided in the UK since 1995 with his wife Usha and their two children.

Mittal is known for buying a stake in Queen's Park Rangers and for his extensive charity work, as well as a large property portfolio which includes three homes on Kensington Palace Gardens, known as "Billionaire's Row". He also donated some £5 million to the Labour Party during Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s premierships.

But now, sources close to the Rajasthan-born tycoon have confirmed he plans to leave the UK days before Rachel Reeves delivers her second budget, The Sunday Times reports.

The chancellor’s cull of non-dom status in April is understood to be a deciding factor that led to Mittal's exit. The system, in place for over 200 years, allowed rich residents to pay UK tax only on income and gains made on British soil.

“It wasn’t the tax on income [or capital gains] that was the issue,” an adviser with knowledge of Mittal's move said. “The issue was inheritance tax. Many wealthy people from overseas cannot understand why all of their assets, wherever they are in the world, should be subject to inheritance tax imposed by the UK Treasury. People in this situation feel they have little choice but to leave and are either sad or angry to be doing so.”

Reeves' budget last October angered many super wealthy residents with its increases to capital gains tax as well as limits imposed on tax relief for entrepreneurs selling their ventures. New taxes were also introduced for family companies handing down their businesses to the next generation.

Rumoured further taxes include a 20 per cent exit tax on those leaving the UK, while critics have accused the chancellor of attacking wealth creation.

Mittal is a resident in Switzerland for tax purposes and reportedly plans to spend much more time in Dubai, where he owns a mansion as well as part of a new development on nearby Naïa Island.

Mittal is not the only billionaire fleeing Britain's shores. Norwegian shipping magnate John Fredriksen upped sticks to Dubai earlier this year, saying Britain had “gone to hell”, while German investor Christian Angermayer moved to Switzerland, saying the non-dom changes are the UK’s "death blow".

Herman Narula and Nik Storonsky, who co-founded of the tech companies Improbable and Revolut, have also raised concerns about UK tax changes, and moved to Dubai.

Mittal was born into an Indian family involved in the steel trade, and he joined his father's company after graduating with a first class commerce degree from college.

He moved to Indonesia in 1976 and set up his own steel producing plant, which gradually morphed into ArcelorMittal - the world's second biggest steel producer with over 125,000 employees. Realising the global steel industry was fractured, Mittal systematically bought up scattered plants across the world one by one and made them collaborate effectively.

The ArcelorMittal name was finally cast in 2006, when Mittal successfully took control of Luxembourg-based rival Arcelor after a five-month bidding process.

ArcelorMittal is now worth more than £25 billion on the stock market and the Mittal own almost 40 per cent of shares. Mittal has a similar stake in steel manufacturer Aperam, as well as almost half of energy firm HPCL-Mittal Energy.

[regis80]

I've taken this from London Evening Standard by the way......

This guy is happy to pay income tax here and was a major supporter of charitable causes including Oxford University, 2012 Olympic Games, Public Libraries and donating £15m to Great Ormand Street Hospital. How does this benefit the UK?

Indian steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal has become the latest billionaire to leave the UK in response to Labour's tax reforms for the super wealthy.

Mittal, 75, currently has an estimated personal fortune of £15.4bn and has resided in the UK since 1995 with his wife Usha and their two children.

Mittal is known for buying a stake in Queen's Park Rangers and for his extensive charity work, as well as a large property portfolio which includes three homes on Kensington Palace Gardens, known as "Billionaire's Row". He also donated some £5 million to the Labour Party during Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s premierships.

But now, sources close to the Rajasthan-born tycoon have confirmed he plans to leave the UK days before Rachel Reeves delivers her second budget, The Sunday Times reports.

The chancellor’s cull of non-dom status in April is understood to be a deciding factor that led to Mittal's exit. The system, in place for over 200 years, allowed rich residents to pay UK tax only on income and gains made on British soil.

“It wasn’t the tax on income [or capital gains] that was the issue,” an adviser with knowledge of Mittal's move said. “The issue was inheritance tax. Many wealthy people from overseas cannot understand why all of their assets, wherever they are in the world, should be subject to inheritance tax imposed by the UK Treasury. People in this situation feel they have little choice but to leave and are either sad or angry to be doing so.”

Reeves' budget last October angered many super wealthy residents with its increases to capital gains tax as well as limits imposed on tax relief for entrepreneurs selling their ventures. New taxes were also introduced for family companies handing down their businesses to the next generation.

Rumoured further taxes include a 20 per cent exit tax on those leaving the UK, while critics have accused the chancellor of attacking wealth creation.

Mittal is a resident in Switzerland for tax purposes and reportedly plans to spend much more time in Dubai, where he owns a mansion as well as part of a new development on nearby Naïa Island.

Mittal is not the only billionaire fleeing Britain's shores. Norwegian shipping magnate John Fredriksen upped sticks to Dubai earlier this year, saying Britain had “gone to hell”, while German investor Christian Angermayer moved to Switzerland, saying the non-dom changes are the UK’s "death blow".

Herman Narula and Nik Storonsky, who co-founded of the tech companies Improbable and Revolut, have also raised concerns about UK tax changes, and moved to Dubai.

Mittal was born into an Indian family involved in the steel trade, and he joined his father's company after graduating with a first class commerce degree from college.

He moved to Indonesia in 1976 and set up his own steel producing plant, which gradually morphed into ArcelorMittal - the world's second biggest steel producer with over 125,000 employees. Realising the global steel industry was fractured, Mittal systematically bought up scattered plants across the world one by one and made them collaborate effectively.

The ArcelorMittal name was finally cast in 2006, when Mittal successfully took control of Luxembourg-based rival Arcelor after a five-month bidding process.

ArcelorMittal is now worth more than £25 billion on the stock market and the Mittal own almost 40 per cent of shares. Mittal has a similar stake in steel manufacturer Aperam, as well as almost half of energy firm HPCL-Mittal Energy.

Afternoon 123, hope you are keeping well. I agree with some the stuff you’re saying 123 and my main argument is really about targeting the super rich which you have given an example of.. i’m talking the 1% who are literally controlling and buying everything and squeezing everyone else out.. Gary’s Economics latest video talks about this https://youtu.be/g0lEbH2kEw8?si=zwdnBUgs0w9BI5cK

We need to stop offering foreign companies these golden handshakes, let them come in but play by our rules.. i get this isn’t going to attract them in the first place. If they want to sell to us, surely they have no choice?

There are so many ways we should be clawing back money.. Let’s take Uber and Deliveroo.. how much money do we think they extract from the UK? It’s a lot of money.. i’d like to see our government funding a british owned equivalent start up to counter act and ensure this money doesn’t leave the UK. Better here than abroad.. i know there’s be holes in my argument.. it’s just to give an idea what we should be doing and pandering to global corporations and 1%. I can go on for ages about this with you 123 and we’ll sure agree on matters.
I don’t think any of us here are on the 1%, simply because we wouldn’t be on here. Top income earners were both thinking of shouldn’t get a tax hike as you explain, it should be those from higher up.

[baggieal]

Afternoon 123, hope you are keeping well. I agree with some the stuff you’re saying 123 and my main argument is really about targeting the super rich which you have given an example of.. i’m talking the 1% who are literally controlling and buying everything and squeezing everyone else out.. Gary’s Economics latest video talks about this https://youtu.be/g0lEbH2kEw8?si=zwdnBUgs0w9BI5cK

We need to stop offering foreign companies these golden handshakes, let them come in but play by our rules.. i get this isn’t going to attract them in the first place. If they want to sell to us, surely they have no choice?

There are so many ways we should be clawing back money.. Let’s take Uber and Deliveroo.. how much money do we think they extract from the UK? It’s a lot of money.. i’d like to see our government funding a british owned equivalent start up to counter act and ensure this money doesn’t leave the UK. Better here than abroad.. i know there’s be holes in my argument.. it’s just to give an idea what we should be doing and pandering to global corporations and 1%. I can go on for ages about this with you 123 and we’ll sure agree on matters.
I don’t think any of us here are on the 1%, simply because we wouldn’t be on here. Top income earners were both thinking of shouldn’t get a tax hike as you explain, it should be those from higher up.

Whatever happens middle earners 50 to 100K will be squeezed. You can’t always assume those in 1 million pound plus houses are loaded etc for council tax hikes - some may have less disposable income than someone living in a modest 200K house ie pensioners - big mortgage etc. It was the same principle when VAT was added to private school fees - were all parents wealthy that sent there kids to private schools? No of course not because some parents scraped every penny to give their kids a decent education as opposed to getting p issed in places like Magaluf! Some have priorities!

Many couldn’t give a s hit about Rachel’s black hole when the government waste billions on giving out universal credit like confetti - billions spent on illegals arriving whilst our homeless are on the streets and billions spent on foreign aid plus billions spent on Ukraine more so than most other NATO countries. Now there’s talk of doing away with the two child cap so this mainly will benefit even more claiming universal credit.

Other EU countries like Spain don’t waste billions on s hite as mentioned above. Even to receive benefits you have had to contribute to the system otherwise you get next to nothing. In our country even wealthy pensioners received the fuel allowance FFS and didn’t financially need it. You get free NHS prescriptions when your 60 so what a joke how this is not in sinc with the retirement age. So you could be 60 on 100 grand a year and getting free prescriptions FFS.

The whole system is laughable. After this Wednesday the Government will be hated even more if this is possible.

The high street is failing because of high rents and rates plus greedy councils hiking parking charges. Meanwhile companies like Amazon are shifting their accounts around and paying very little in taxation. For me any online business that turns over a certain amount ie 3 million should be hammered with an online tax so there’s a level playing field between high street and online.

As you say Reeves won’t last long and the gutless and spineless Starmer will soon follow.

[baggiematt]

Afternoon 123, hope you are keeping well. I agree with some the stuff you’re saying 123 and my main argument is really about targeting the super rich which you have given an example of.. i’m talking the 1% who are literally controlling and buying everything and squeezing everyone else out.. Gary’s Economics latest video talks about this https://youtu.be/g0lEbH2kEw8?si=zwdnBUgs0w9BI5cK

We need to stop offering foreign companies these golden handshakes, let them come in but play by our rules.. i get this isn’t going to attract them in the first place. If they want to sell to us, surely they have no choice?

There are so many ways we should be clawing back money.. Let’s take Uber and Deliveroo.. how much money do we think they extract from the UK? It’s a lot of money.. i’d like to see our government funding a british owned equivalent start up to counter act and ensure this money doesn’t leave the UK. Better here than abroad.. i know there’s be holes in my argument.. it’s just to give an idea what we should be doing and pandering to global corporations and 1%. I can go on for ages about this with you 123 and we’ll sure agree on matters.
I don’t think any of us here are on the 1%, simply because we wouldn’t be on here. Top income earners were both thinking of shouldn’t get a tax hike as you explain, it should be those from higher up.

Gary Stevenson is an intelligent bloke but if you watch him debate with proper economists, they debunk him very easily. He tries to simplify very complex topics and leaves out several important factors that damage his argument, probably not purposefully.

Most governments arent concerned by corporation tax. Not only is it a f*cker to prove and fight for, but also you get the money back in the end even if it isnt taxed. If it becomes a dividend, it’s taxed and is usually spent back into the economy. If it goes back into the business it’s spent on investment which creates jobs and wealth.

We need foreign investment. It’s absolutely critical for growth.

Socialism, in a sense of less billionaires, is a bit of a myth. The Nordic Model is often seen as the best example of socialism but they have more billionaires than us vs overall population.

[regis80]

Gary Stevenson is an intelligent bloke but if you watch him debate with proper economists, they debunk him very easily. He tries to simplify very complex topics and leaves out several important factors that damage his argument, probably not purposefully.

Most governments arent concerned by corporation tax. Not only is it a f*cker to prove and fight for, but also you get the money back in the end even if it isnt taxed. If it becomes a dividend, it’s taxed and is usually spent back into the economy. If it goes back into the business it’s spent on investment which creates jobs and wealth.

We need foreign investment. It’s absolutely critical for growth.

Socialism, in a sense of less billionaires, is a bit of a myth. The Nordic Model is often seen as the best example of socialism but they have more billionaires than us vs overall population.

There are some economists and accountants namely Richard Murphy that have tried to debunk him, but (and i say from my own point of view) they are well rooted into the their economic models that anything going against it will be debunked, despite it being broken and not really working. Gary at least is owning up to this to say something fundamentally is wrong. I can see that something is wrong, sure you do too Matt. What the answer is, i don’t know. But we can’t have a minority of the global population hoarding all the wealth. This cannot be ignored nor be said it’s irrelevant.