Marr is no better than any other political reporter, except he comes across as very left wing so I suppose he's trying to soften the crap that the likes of him voted for.
@@FloatingCreamI wish he’d stop making all his political predictions. He is wrong more often than he’s right and is often unduly influenced by his own left-wing sympathies. Journalists should always try to be as even-handed as possible.
The public private partnership model failed. The government pays less a rate than anyone else, they can run an overdraft with BoE. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how government funding works.
It's not the fact that she ended the WFA, it's that she introduced it immediately, rather than giving people time to adjust their budgets. Worse than that, was not putting measures in place first to protect the financially vulnerable. Not all pensioners are comfortably off. For me personally, it was the optic of announcing that as your very first cut, rather than targeting first those millionaires and billionaires whose wealth increased exponentially under 14 years of privileged treatment under the Tories. Amateurish politics at best, heartless indifference towards ordinary people at worst. Not what I would expect from any Labour Chancellor.
Right, let's be clear....the amount raised by the winter fuel cut would not in any scenario have that much of an effect on an apparent 'market panic' of a scale similar to the Truss announcements - that just does not stack up.
11:49 my understanding of Pefsnuffle is that you can count assets against debt. So if we borrow money to build council houses, the houses count as assets that balance out the debt. The current system just counts the debt. It’s why we got into the stupid system of getting private companies to build prisons, hospitals and roads for us and then charging us inflated prices for using them.
You can, but the risk of that approach is how you assign value to assets vs. their actual productivity. I could build something completely useless, that produces no boost to GDP or tax revenue, but argue its worth £XB because it costs that much to built.
@@PJH13 agreed. Both have flaws but you need realise that when making policy. The current system has allowed some companies to rip off the country because politicians have been happy to sign up for ruinous projects. Currently you have a situation where councils are paying rogue landlords ridiculous rents because they can’t build their own houses.
Its insuring your health bu insuring you get free health care via the NHS. And it's what enables you to get the state pension. So basically everything you just said is wrong
I run a small business. Margins are tight, we try to pay our staff as much as we can. Won't increasing NI for small businessess put them at risk and stunt wage growth for those companies?
Yes, and the sky will fall in and we'll all get leprosy. Except this won't happen. I remember when Labour won in 1997 after 18 years - God help us - of the Tories, and Blair announced he'd re-introduce the Minimum Wage, which Thatcher (who else) had removed. There was uproar. People like yourself lamented loudly and told us the sky would fall in etc. etc. Well, they did re-introduce the Minimum Wage and the sky didn't fall in and, if memory serves, the number of leprosy cases didn't increase either. People did begin to get a living wage though.
@@rhiannonhill sadly we don't really have many profits to reduce. We maximise staff wages while trying to build a 2/3 month wage buffer. I take the mid salary at the business so I always have an insensitive to make things better for everyone.
absolutely, "a goverment of service " just like the Tories a Goverment who accept freebies. "Those with the deepest pockets will have to pay" Why are the top 1% of the population not worried bout the upcoming Budget, but the bottom 10% are frightened. Labour party?
Taxing multimillionaires is indeed very hard indeed, because they go to such great lengths to make it so. Reflect on the cruel truth that to uncover all their dealing would cost more money than it would bring in. I sympathise with the anger but not with the content of your comment.
@@TarlachOakleaf Maybe so but Labour were lent votes to get the disaster that were the Tory party out of power. If the dont deliver on " Those with the deepest pockets will pay" promise hard to see them being lent votes in the future. unfortunately, the alternative will be as in many Euro countries the far right, which will be a total disaster
@@TarlachOakleafThe Labour and socialist fallacy that all millionaires have made their fortune by I'll and deviant means. What labour fail to grasp is that wealthy people often run businesses that employ people and those can easily be moved abroad
@@Charlieb6308 First: "Behind every great fortune there is a crime" ~ Balzac. I am not aware that only Labour supporters believe this. Far from it. Second: the manner in which the rich have acquired their wealth is manifestly not the issue here. It's how they go to such great, and frequently illegal, lengths to not pay tax on it. Third: they already do move their businesses abroad, when they can. James Dyson famously did so. This was because people are paid less in the 3rd world than they are here. The answer of people like yourself is that the British workforce should be paid similar rates to 3rd world workforces. There is a succinct response to this which I'll leave it to you to imagine - if you can do that. The threat "Don't upset me or I'll leave" has been tried many times and is always followed by the mirth it deserves. Third: why on Earth would anyone imagine that "labour fail to grasp is that wealthy people often run businesses that employ people and those can easily be moved abroad"? Are you serious? Surely not. Perhaps you should put the bottle down. In spite of the awe-inspiring number of complete eejits on social media I find it hard to believe that even they could think such a fatuous thing, but perhaps I'm wrong.
As a high rate tax payer who is raising a family, I am absolutely flat broke with no margins month to month. More tax rises even if shouldered by employers will be reflected back on employees for example by not pushing up wages in line with inflation. It will be a tax on employees in the end it always is. I despair with this country.
Leave. We did last year and we're much happier.and solvent in a country with 20% flat tax. As someone said to me when we relocated our biz - you're not a tree. You can always.go back. Why put up with a 62% marginal tax rate?
For context, I'm also a higher rate tax payer and I'm saving 70% of my income and still living fairly lavishly. I do not understand where other people on my income are spending their money, it can't be essentials. Unless maxing out your ISA each year and making heightened contributions to your pension, and paying for day care, paying for cleaners, living in zone 1 etc etc. counts as essential.
@@Dongobog-ps9tz Pre pandemic my wife and I had been renting for 18 years but finally were able to get a mortgage borrowing at 90% which we did in order to start a family. We didn't feel secure doing so in a house where the landlord can decide to upend you. The mortgage rate cost has absolutely spiralled since then. So have all other bills, and food - as everyone knows. My son has been diagnosed with autism and gets sent home from school, my other son started nursery recently so that my wife could go back to work some days. Nursery fees are insane. My wife earns minimum wage except she can't work all days because she commonly has to collect the boys. Because I am earning over 50k we don't qualify for any benefits (the most I have ever claimed is 2 weeks jobseekers allowance when I was 19). So if I add my income after tax to my wife's we are earning probably less than most couples do at this stage in life. Another couple can both be earning 30-45k each and get childcare benefits and other things. Seriously the benefits system will just rule things out if there is just one high earner, without taking into account the total family earnings. If one of you is a high earner and the other minimum wage you will be overly penalised. So once you factor in all of these things, yes I am at the point now where I think we may have to sell the house. If we do, I don't think I would like to stay in this country. The amount I pay in tax and NI is a joke and we don't even have a dentist because we cannot find one on the NHS. I best stop ranting now, as I will never stop, the whole system is wrecked.
@@Dongobog-ps9tz do you own your home or do you pay a mortgage as Mortgage cost for me is number one biggest expenditure. Also do you have a partner who brings in a good income also? As really when raising a family and its you family income that matters. Like I said before me earning 51k means no childcare allowance but a couple both earning 49k - totally fine, and it makes a big difference if you want to remain working. Do you have any children diagnosed with autism or anything like that? I say that because it means one of you will commonly have to go collect the child from school whilst all this stuff is worked out and if that person is being paid by the hour, then goodbye more income. There are lots of factors that can mean one person paying higher rate of tax can be in a situation where they have barely any liquidity. There should be less attention paid to individuals tax brackets and more attention on household income imho.
@@glostergloster6945And what about SMEs? Daft comment. Millions of working people will be affected by this, from a centrist Labour voter here too. I'm not against it per se, but they've definitely been sneaky here
The, very technical, point is most employers are "corporate entities", legal vehicles for conducting business rather than actual people. While taxing a company reduces the amount of money that is available for salaries, those personal incomes are not being taxed any further. Sneaky? I dont think so!
Well I'm an employer and i work like stink. But not in the UK. Took self, family.and biz elsewhere last Summer. Sadly had to let 10 people go, but regulation and taxation were strangling the growth potential and we're in a competitive market. Energy costs were another consideration (significant input factor for us) - we believe UK is heading for blackouts which would have been a disaster. Hopefully Miliband's strategy will one say produce the promised £300 savings (£449 in real terms given Ofgen just announced +£149).
The company I work for is outsourcing lots of UK jobs to India at the end of the month. If you make it too expensive for companies to hire UK workers they will simply outsource.
i work with companies that have done this and outsourced to India, a lot of them are absolutely useless employees,(i work in IT and functions that should take 30 minutes (ie patching servers) can take 3 hours and tie up multiple people rather than one decent well paid employee also the attrition is over the hill, I've seen people quit before they even start as the only way they get pay rises over there is to job jump , lucky to get 12 months out of an employee
your company is the problem. When minimum wage came in companies threatened to outsource or leave. Few did. Big companies will do that for cheap labor regardless
Of course you can if you want. That's your perogative. However, it's the perogative of customers to stop using companies that do this. Some Indian call centres, for example, have shredded UK customer relations and we've dropped two suppliers, simply because their service is no longer usable. There's also the tiny issue of loyalty: If you signal that you have no loyalty to the UK, you can expect your UK customers to cease being loyal to you in return.
@@Cassp0nk the real ones who have been overly favoured are our governments. We need to reduce its size drastically. That could save some much needed money.
Time and again people act as if every wealthy person plans their whole life on a financial spreadsheet. Most people have roots of some kind - families, schools, social scenes. And businesses need access to employees and markets, they aren't as mobile as they like to pretend
I might suggest that you don’t waste money on Carbon Capture over the lifetime of this government and spend the money on good programmers for the increasingly digital NHS. We need to stop people being added to the bottom of waiting lists as well as taking them off the top
UK economy is more stable than major EU countries. Who would have thought Andrew would have said it. His colleague nearly said it but stopped herself 7:37
I am 32 years old. I reached my first 100 thousand dollars in just three months. I started with 30k investing in Bitcoin ETFs and other dividend income. My medium-term goal is to reach one million dollars before I turn 45.
An annoying thing about these conversations among journalists: too much assumed knowledge. Hannah started talking about her understanding of the crisis Reeves found left by the Tories on entering government. But Andrew cut her off by agreeing. So it was never explicitly stated. This happens all the time at various levels and in different ways, and important messages are being lost or underplayed
You're behind the times. .black hole is now £40bn. Keep up - Reeves makes Stephen Hawkings look lkke an amateur.on this black hole stuff. Future Nobel prize recipient.perhaps? Worked for.Bernanke . .
Taylor Swift should offer Keith Starmer and Rachel Reeves more free concert tickets and a TWENTY minute sit-down meeting in exchange for financing national insurance via a hike in the capital gains rate and tax on unrealized stock and real estate gains.
Everything I hear in this episode is, in my view, consistent with the messages that Labour (and Reeves) have been using since the start of 2024. I don't see any problem with the strategy or the handling of the messages if you accept the timetable for the budget is shaped by the need to set expectations and deal with the reaction of financial markets. I hope Labour use the technicalities Will explored to maximize investment in this country - it's what the UK really needs.
Does tax actually fund spending? The answer surprisingly is no: since 1866 an act of parliament says once the budget is past by parliament the bank of England is legally required to make any payment parliament required. Put simply all government spending is money creation. All taxation is money destruction. The correct legal sequence is- 1. Government set a legal taxation 2. Government spends to enable taxation requirements to be met. 3. Tax is collected
If only our politicians and our media including interviewers spent a little time understanding modern money theory, we would not be asking silly questions like 'where is the money to pay for whatever' but ask the critical question, 'from where will the resources come'. As the issuer of the pound, the constraints are the resources, not the self-imposed financial budgets.
If all this proposed infrastructure investment is such a no-brainer, why can't ordinary people just raid their own bank accounts and invest directly themselves?
Ordinary people dont have the power to raise income through taxation but they are are indeed free to "raid their own bank accounts" to invest in assets or developnew skills.
Labour must think the country of full of bodybuilders the way they think everyone can take it. Although lockdown and furlough was way too leniwi and we will pay for it for decades
I hate that phrase 'those with the broadest shoulders' as it often falls on the middle income earners who hard are fed up carrying the burden for poor political decisions in the country.
@@PJH13 they said they wouldn't raise taxes on working people. I'm comfortable on that delineation to be honest. Almost no one is going to notice if employers NI goes from 13.8% to 15%, say. Take home pay at the bottom of the payslip will remain unchanged for PAYE earners, which is most of the workforce.
The issue for Labour is that they are trying to blame the need for raising employers NI on new knowledge about the financial black hole, even though they planned this raise before the election. That's a blatant deception and blows their contention about not knowing about the black hole before the election, out of the water.
I’d be happy to pay more percent tax if it meant the government can make the right decisions. Although minimum wage and zero hour contracts need to be considered thoroughly and have less percentage tax.
So there’s going to be a lot of investment-who’s gonna do all this blue collar/trades kind of work? Isn’t part of the problem with the lack of housing is the lack of tradesman to do it? I think the UK needs more housing than just about any of the infrastructure project.
Yep, need to set-up a funding structure to support their training. Atm university students get enormous funding, whilst apprentices get very little at all so why would you do the latter.
..perhaps someone could explain how tax rises of any description actually stimulate growth. Starmer's talking down the economy isn't helping. And anyone notice Barnier in France has just announced large tax rises (and spending cuts) to try and raise 66 bn euros. So it would appear whether right or (so-called) left, fiscal policy is the same ...
A potential malign actor coordinating low-growth policies is an interesting thought experiment. If we were to consider possible motives for such a hypothetical scenario (while acknowledging this is speculative), they might include: 1. Wealth concentration: In a low-growth environment, those who already own assets might maintain their relative wealth more easily. 2. Social control: Economic stagnation can make populations more dependent on government support. 3. Global competition: Slowing growth in some countries could potentially benefit others in relative terms. 4. Resource conservation: Limiting growth could be seen as a way to reduce resource consumption and environmental impact. Come to think of it, this probably does align well with the WEF lol
I`ve got a small business 10 people its such a fine line now paying staff enough to survive and still make a profit we have increased prices 50% over the last 3 years to make enough to pay staff Salary's they can afford to live on my own earnings are down 50% since 2020 I`ve promised them 3% pay rise in April but it might just be p45s for everyone I'm gonna have to raise prices about 7-15% just for that. Like a lot of Business people we had a pretty good run for 25 years buy this is the worst its ever been and the savings are gone.
Raising national insurance for either employers or employees is not the way to go. Why do we stop NI contributions at retirement age for everyone. Hundreds of thousands of pensioners (myself included) should be making a contribution towards our future likely care needs. So many of my generation (baby boomers) have never had it so good. Cruise ships are full of the likes of my partner and me, spending the kids’ inheritances. The young already have it hard - so many will never own their own homes.
Their manifesto clearly said they will not raise National Insurance. There was no specification of Employer vs Employee National Insurance... it's so disingenuous.
It was pretty obvious that "working people" does not mean employers it means the average job receiving a payslip each month from his job. Employers NI was brllought up to them during the campaign and they never said it was protected by the manifesto promise and never ruled out raising it.
Incomplete comments on the Gilt Bond market dynamics. The bonds interest rate component is related to risk of economic/financial mismanagement, by the government, and consequent economic/financial crash, even default as a remote possibility, and forecast on inflation (the value of the goes down on the secondary market). Another important consideration, for foreign investors, is the currency (GB pound) stability and strength.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis says Rachel Reeves must slash government spending if she wants to get debt down as relying solely on tax rises is “undesirable”.
Ah yes, because the financial markets will definitely not react in any way to you deciding you don't care what they think. That approach worked out so well for the lettuce.
She will tax kids pocket money next 💰💰 next im not surprised she hasn't put tax on school dinners 😞😞😞😞 and anything els she can tax tax on breathing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Putting up employer’s NI is an indirect tax on workers from the party that wasn’t going to tax working people and anybody that doesn’t understand that needs a wake up call. You thought you were getting a pay rise next year? Nope. Next years sell rates are already decided and negotiated with customers, the money isn’t coming from anywhere else but this year’s inflationary pay rise going to workers, margin on sales is not going down just because the govt. has decided to increase overhead, simply not how it works. Investors have profit targets and they WILL be retained come what may.
@@JohnSmith-bx8zb Tories and Labour both have endless misdemeanours.. and so no boubt will all political parties into the future. I only care about what is being done now, starting with are the government even acknowledging problems I feel are important. The answer for Labour is no. The second question is do I trust them to govern with integrity. The answer again is no. They have a huge majority right now but I doubt very much they can keep it. Let's see.
@@advocate1563 The employer doesnt pay for the Eployer's NI. The company does. It's not a personal tax on people. And most taxes for companies are themselves tiered. But even on the discussion of personal taxes, due to how finances are moved and the tax breaks richer companies get etc, the richest pay a lower percentage of their total income as Tax.
@@advocate1563stop splitting gears its quote obvious who they meant by working people - employees, sole traders. Not employers. And no working employer is being taxed here its the company. Is the company a working person?
It's was 22 of Billion of unfunded spending... And 20 Billion of unfunded national insurance cuts .... It's easy to fact check ...do your homework or you look stupid !
Yeah because you know better than the office of budget responsibility which literally confirmed this back holes. What do you mean "they can't tell us where it is"? It's unfunded spending not a location in London.
Explaining how businesses work to a labour zombie is futile exercise but let’s try again. Working people are hired by EMPLOYERS. Increasing taxes on said employers means less money for them to expand their businesses or pay their employees higher wages. Now tell me labour zombie - do you think employers grow money on trees?
The OBR did some analysis and found 80% of employers NI gets passed on to employees in lower wage increases. So even if you believe that only employees are 'working people', and that there was nothing dishonest about saying NI when they meant employee NI, this is still a tax on working people.
I wouldn't even care if they put it back to 10% like it was at the start of the year. We all know Hunt only lowered it to create an election campaign trap for Labour (which they refused to walk into, because it wasn't very hidden). A frank conversation with the country about what Hunt did, why he did it and what putting it back up will achieve is all that's needed. Ignore the media and the pollsters, stirring it up.
Sorry , lost me at “debt not to fund govt spending”, complete nonsense. Debt funds ALL govt spending. The cycle is borrow (from itself, the BofE), spend, tax.
I'm glad this government has the balls to make the tough decisions that the Tories never could. All they did was get us deeper and deeper into debt such that now we're swimming in an ocean of it. Look up the current National Debt, but only if you fancy a sleepless night. Debts have to be paid.
"Tough decisions" are always the easiest decisions though aren't they. Kicking people on disability benefits is easy to do by both parties. But going after the enormous amounts of untapped wealth in this poor little rich country IS a tough decision that requires a different mindset
@@luke7708 You people and your need to see things in a certain way regardless of evidence, common sense, or any other inconvenient interfering factor, make me tired. If tough decisions were the easiest ones to make they wouldn't be called "tough decisions" now would they. While I entirely sympathise with the desire to go after the enormous wealth of the rich, I suggest you reflect on the cruel truth that the effort required to do so would cost more than it would bring in.
@@TarlachOakleaf "you people" who is that exactly, anyone who can see that since 2008 the economic model isn't working in this country and the same old ideas don't work anymore? George Osborne talked about "tough decisions" and now Labour are repeating the same rhetoric. And yet in both instances "tough decisions" affect the poorest.
@@luke7708 Oh, I hit a sore spot. Osborne absolutely TALKED about tough decisions but never made any - at least none that would harm the Tory base - and in any case his curatives were wholly inadequate................... and then his successors made it all even worse. As to the poorest, I already answered that. You ignore it because you have nothing else to say. And I have nothing more to say to you. I gift you the last word because you manifestly want it, and I don't. Goodbye.
@@luke7708but they don't affect the poorest. Are you referring to winter fuel? That's one "tough decision" in a slew of measures that will get announced in the budget so maybe wait for that before assuming they're just going after the poorest. Corporations tax, non doms, capital gains are all expected measures that will literally be targeting the wealthiest.
Labour want the old days back the winter of disconnected i can rember 4 day week power cuts i stood on the strike gates at fords halewood on strike soon there will be no factory s left
It's almost as if Jeremy Hunt saw what happened to Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, and thought, "Hmmm, I could weaponize this and lay a trap for the next Chancellor".
Is it a manifesto breach? Debatable. It can only be said to not be a tax on working people by the entent to which it is not a stealth tax. If employers do not actually pass through payroll taxes (economists think they do), then it is a tax on business. If employers do pass the tax by reducing wages, then it is a stealth tax and workers' wages will be suppressed by this national insurance increase.
Andrew tries to contrast Britain positively against France 🇫🇷. Hilarious 🤣 Has he been down a French high St recently? What’s the retirement age in France? France is in such bad shape 🤣🤣😢
Tax. Tax. Tax. Then Tax more. Its time we start thinking about the future of those just starting out. Shame on those pensioners who continue to take without interest in giving their fair share. Tax some more. Tax yo momma and yo daddy.
UK *is* in a good position economically. In France and Germany, the far right are getting too close to power for comfort. Here in the UK, our far right party has no chance of winning power thanks to our first past the post system.
@@OneAndOnlyMe I love how our concept of doing well is just that some other countries are struggling worse than we are. That's not doing well, that's just diverting attention.
If they screw this budget up and the economy flatlines or goes into recession they may need to raise more money next year. Doom talk destroys confidence!
You voted for your MP, based on a broad spectrum of policies, and values. Would you have rather voted for a conservative candidate? If there is a policy you think is awful contact your MP about it. (This video is all speculation until the Budget)… so wait a little longer before you subscribe to the spectator.
Nah don't think so. £107k of free gear up there with free duck ponds. Brits loathe hypocritea with a passion and this lot was world.class players of that game.
Socialism always costs society and those countries always move backwards. Reeves et al are lost and far better shouting across as opposition. Weasel words as usual, and the disgrace that Labour claim employers do not work. They obviously employ Labour's "ordinary working people", and, with the new ill thought employment rights, watch the employment figures grind to a halt. We are witnessing total incompetence, sort of Truss in slo-mo.
