Energy thread
Comments
-
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
The reality is that the UK at the end of all of this will be substantially poorer than it was.
So you have a smaller pie to go around. You need to have an honest debate about where the pain ought to be felt.0 -
I don't think that is true. Source?rick_chasey said:
On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.rick_chasey said:
So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?Stevo_666 said:
Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.rick_chasey said:How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.
That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.
Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.
A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.
So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.
In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.0 -
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/surging-energy-prices-create-perfect-storm-uk-bonds-2022-08-30/TheBigBean said:
I don't think that is true. Source?rick_chasey said:
On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.rick_chasey said:
So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?Stevo_666 said:
Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.rick_chasey said:How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.
That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.
Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.
A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.
So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.
In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.
Since that was published yield on 10 year rose.
Sterling also at 30 year low
0 -
Benefits recipients could have a "no VAT" card to show in shops.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?0 -
Easier if they just wear some kind of badge.kingstongraham said:
Benefits recipients could have a "no VAT" card to show in shops.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
In this context, the politics obviously gets very ugly, and you end up with much more extremist politics.rick_chasey said:The reality is that the UK at the end of all of this will be substantially poorer than it was.
So you have a smaller pie to go around. You need to have an honest debate about where the pain ought to be felt.0 -
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?0 -
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables0 -
I don't get your argumentStevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?
It may be quicker and easier to give every household £2k off their fuel bills. As the MMT seems to be wilting this needs to be paid back so why not add 5% to the 40% and 45% tax rates. That way somebody earning £80k is neutral and above you pay more.
Or as they are a bunch of brainless cvnts claw the £2k back between £80-90k and create a cliff edge and stupidly high marginal rate0 -
rates were only low becuase the Govt did QE to the equivalent amount they were borrowing.rick_chasey said:
On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.rick_chasey said:
So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?Stevo_666 said:
Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.rick_chasey said:How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.
That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.
Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.
A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.
So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.
In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.
I feel the penny may finally be starting to drop0 -
The point is to get money to the people that need it and not to the people that don't without blowing half the budget on admin. If that means paying everyone X pounds and then taxing some of it back, that seems better than wasting money on everyone filling out eligibility forms. Much as it will still hurt, if there is limited help available, then those paying higher rate tax shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the queue.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is just nonsense.surrey_commuter said:
rates were only low becuase the Govt did QE to the equivalent amount they were borrowing.rick_chasey said:
On this note, rates on gilts rose at their fastest in 35 years today.rick_chasey said:
So I am all for borrowing to improve growth & productivity, right?Stevo_666 said:
Why not just borrow the money? As you've explained before there's no real limit to national debt.rick_chasey said:How many people are in the 40% bracket? About 4 and a half million.
That pays for itself many times over. Absolute numbers don't matter, doubly so when you're growing.
Alas, a decade and a half of no growth has rather blunted the ability to borrow down the road.
A lot of borrowing will be happening anyway as we are going to go into a pretty chunky recession, so I doubt there is that much room left over, without better evidence that there is growth at the end of the tunnel.
So far, there are very few indicators that Britain can shake off the productivity problem.
In the same way I was saying that markets were telling the govt to borrow more when rates were low, as rates go higher the markets are saying we want you to borrow less.
I feel the penny may finally be starting to drop
0 -
I would say one of the major producers turning off the gas supply 'government intervention in the market'.surrey_commuter said:
well somebody set up the system where we have ended up paying for all electricity at the price it costs to generate it burning gas.TheBigBean said:
Not sure that is really the case.surrey_commuter said:
reading that article it suggests the problem is caused by Govt intervention in the marketTheBigBean said:
What happened to your belief in free markets?surrey_commuter said:
you are right, let's go back to doing nothingStevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
In simplistic terms we are not getting the benefit of the low prices for renewables1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
True, ease of admin is one advantage. Somehow I don't think our likely new PM will go for this option, however.rjsterry said:
The point is to get money to the people that need it and not to the people that don't without blowing half the budget on admin. If that means paying everyone X pounds and then taxing some of it back, that seems better than wasting money on everyone filling out eligibility forms. Much as it will still hurt, if there is limited help available, then those paying higher rate tax shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the queue.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
She'll offer a tax cut to everyone and, um, give some of the money she hasn't collected to those with the greatest need. Yes, that sounds right.Stevo_666 said:
True, ease of admin is one advantage. Somehow I don't think our likely new PM will go for this option, however.rjsterry said:
The point is to get money to the people that need it and not to the people that don't without blowing half the budget on admin. If that means paying everyone X pounds and then taxing some of it back, that seems better than wasting money on everyone filling out eligibility forms. Much as it will still hurt, if there is limited help available, then those paying higher rate tax shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the queue.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.0 -
Not with the bollox she's been spouting about PV farms, no.Stevo_666 said:
True, ease of admin is one advantage. Somehow I don't think our likely new PM will go for this option, however.rjsterry said:
The point is to get money to the people that need it and not to the people that don't without blowing half the budget on admin. If that means paying everyone X pounds and then taxing some of it back, that seems better than wasting money on everyone filling out eligibility forms. Much as it will still hurt, if there is limited help available, then those paying higher rate tax shouldn't be anywhere near the front of the queue.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.Stevo_666 said:
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?
A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.0 -
We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.0
-
I found this, it looks content though.0 -
If you are now accepting mmt as an option, you might want to know about what it says in an inflationary environment.Stevo_666 said:
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?0 -
You need to explore AI image generationfocuszing723 said:We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.
0 -
.
Blimey, nice, in a non-nice kind of way.kingstongraham said:
You need to explore AI image generationfocuszing723 said:We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.
0 -
I asked for the panicked crowd to be running away from the massive can, but it's not done bad.focuszing723 said:.
Blimey, nice, in a non-nice kind of way.kingstongraham said:
You need to explore AI image generationfocuszing723 said:We've got a tab of £500,000,000,000 for Covid too. Can somebody who has an ounce of effort left in them post up what the UK's current debt level is? Also a picture of the biggest can they can find, preferably looking like it's going to explode at any moment.
0 -
You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.rick_chasey said:
Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.Stevo_666 said:
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?
A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.0 -
The argument I made then and make now is borrowing when it’s cheap makes sense.Pross said:
You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.rick_chasey said:
Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.Stevo_666 said:
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?
A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.
Borrowing when it’s expensive doesn’t.
0 -
Anyway, Germany is running into its own problems in handling the crisis:
0 -
And the point everyone else was making was that history suggested those rates were going to rise therefore resulting in the costs increasing.rick_chasey said:
The argument I made then and make now is borrowing when it’s cheap makes sense.Pross said:
You never seemed to think interest rates rising would be a problem before when people were pointing out they were unnaturally low and likely to rise.rick_chasey said:
Because it’s getting quite expensive? Quite quickly.Stevo_666 said:
So going back to my question above, why not borrow?rick_chasey said:
Yes because the pie is shrinking. Someone had to lose out somewhere.Stevo_666 said:
Still pointless to take away with one hand to give back with the other, as mentioned.pangolin said:
Allows for relatively straightforward tax collection then the Gov can target assistance to whoever needs it most.Stevo_666 said:
But as above, what's the point?rjsterry said:
On the hand, no different to receiving child benefit and then getting it taxed back.Stevo_666 said:
I just posted something to the same effect.rjsterry said:
ttoStevo_666 said:
So that would be quite broad as it covers everyone making over £50k a year. Seem to recall seeing in the news recently that a good proportion of people earning close to that amount might need help with their bills...rjsterry said:
Assumed that would be higher rate payers as an easy identifier.Stevo_666 said:Possible small catch in the last sentence of the second paragraph, as I'm sure the definition of 'rich' will be pretty broad if they want to get enough money in.
https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/27/people-earning-45000-could-struggle-with-bills-says-chancellor
Certainly no point robbing Peter to pay Paul
You just said above that there's no point robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I said above we already do it, unless you are proposing a complete overhaul of the system?
A lot of borrowing will be going on anyway given the recession.
Borrowing when it’s expensive doesn’t.0
