rishi sunak the stupidest chancellor in the history of britain

**bensherman** · 13/05/2020 08:36 PM

For many businesses labour is only one cost out of many, and while substantial, may not even be the largest.
This scheme means that if the firm can carry those other costs for some time, and a large part of its labour cost is subsidised, there is hope it can start up again successfully when conditions allow.
paying this and ring-fencing it for pay prevents owners diverting it into other costs, while preventing people making a massive move to claim benefits.
It is a big cost but probably wise to do.

**sandGroundZero** · 13/05/2020 08:42 PM

With a brief reference to post #29, notably: "…straight from the rich who pay most of the taxes …"

Note, from the Institute of Fiscal Studies

Name: composition of tax receipts.png
Views: 0
Size: 143.7 KB

Composition of tax receipts, 2017–18

While it is true that the UK's Income Tax receipts come disproportionately from upper one or two deciles of income distribution, that tax represented a quarter of receipts in 2017-18. The other taxes indicated tend to be more-or-less regressive, inflicting pain and distress on the lowest paid. But doubtless, the poster knows that.
Plus, many of the richest have opportunities to avoid paying tax on all of their income — by design!
The Chancellor of the Exchequer presumably calculates that the many and various costs to the economy of not supporting employees would be far greater. But, you know that too; don't you? Consider it money well spent.

Let's not pretend the very wealthy are getting screwed. Generally speaking, it is quite the reverse.

**silver fox** · 14/05/2020 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by local

Unlike the Bank bailout (which the Banks had/have to pay for) the furlough scheme from our money does not require paying back.

That is why we the UK punters own Banks.

It is, which will frighten the right wingers amongst us, giving straight from the rich who pay most of the taxes to the people lower down the scale, Rishi should be renamed Robin

The support is amazingly generous 80% to stay at home for many is the best deal they have ever or will ever have and mostly paid for by wealthy tax payers.

It may well appear generous to some, however the alternative of dealing with mass redundancies and unemployment benefit claims is probably the least expensive, with the obvious bonus that hopefully many companies and workforce remain intact.

As far as the Robin Hood syndrome is concerned, tax payable is unchanged this merely uses funds in a different way, taxes for the wealthy have not changed in any way, trying to give the impression that the wealthy are funding extra is the right wing disease.

**gazaprop** · 14/05/2020 08:56 AM

I'm currently furloughed with tax and NI deducted at source, so there is a 'reverse rebate' operating.
I think most would consider the system generous but I agree the alternative doesn't bear thinking about - job retention has to be preferable for the public purse, in the longer term, to job losses.
The point is sometimes made that the 80% does not cover all outgoings for some - maybe post covid19, one of the lessons learned, will be to live within our means rather than up to and beyond our means.
I often hear mooted that the richest in society pay the largest chunk of tax 'collected' - if this is the case then surely there is an implied duty to help out those whom, directly or indirectly, are the source of that wealth.
To ignore that duty would surely adversely affect the retention or increase of that wealth once normal service is resumed?

**gsgsgs** · 14/05/2020 10:47 AM

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m

ispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m

efJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->I had one pay day whilst on furlough, as I followed the lockdown rules my car didn't move off the drive for 3 weeks saving on petrol, I've not been to the pub, cafes/restaurants or another form of social activity and not likely to anytime soon again saving money, so 80% (in my circumstances) is manageable.

What I have seen and this is where it fails is people going on furlough either through choice or not getting an alternative job, or in one instance I know working overtime with an employer whilst furloughed from their self-employment job, this can't be right, if you choose to work elsewhere or work overtime then this 2nd income should be taken from your furlough payment, or allow additional work/overtime to take you to 100% of normal pay.

Furlough payments are subject to tax & NI and the 2nd income also so there is the 'reverse rebate' as gazaprop says but is it right that someone can accept 80% of their usual salary and make more money elsewhere?

**Hamble** · 14/05/2020 03:37 PM

On the other hand there are people working full time from home whilst some colleague's are on Furlough being paid not to work at all.

I have not heard Labour come up with a better plan.

**silver fox** · 14/05/2020 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Hamble

On the other hand there are people working full time from home whilst some colleague's are on Furlough being paid not to work at all.

I have not heard Labour come up with a better plan.

When did Labour form the government or have even been asked to work with the government?

**local** · 14/05/2020 08:50 PM

Pointless mentioning Labour they were rejected as a government option and they are pretty irrelevant at the moment, Mr Starmer the damp squib is not really making headway with anything.

As to the government furlough scheme its far better than the economy tanking.

The non tax payers at all levels should be pursued with the utmost vigour we are going to need every penny.

The reality that the net recipients of our taxes will have to take less or pay more to help us recover should not be dismissed.

**Toodles McGinty** · 15/05/2020 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by muddyboots

this idiot wants to extend the skivers payroll till october....you would have to be very stupid to go back to work if he is paying your wages to stay at home with your feet up....he must be the dumbest person in govt that i have ever known..since neville chamberlin....get him removed and boris who i once had faith in and has now been found wanting!!!...im utterly furious!!

Or very few people have any income, savings used up, business collapses, retail collapses and complete societal breakdown ensues. Or everybody goes in work, the virus spreads uncontrollably, the NHS buckles under the weight, dead people all over the place, societal breakdown.

Good call.

**sandGroundZero** · 21/05/2020 07:56 PM

Who gains? The importance of accounting for capital gains

Name: 20-143_Who gains_ResolutionFoundation.png
Views: 0
Size: 19.1 KB

A Report from the Resolution Foundation
examining the distorting effect of Capital Gains
in the assessment of taxable income in the UK

We should also care about capital gains because of their very uneven distribution. Even among those 260,000 people (around 0.5 per cent of UK adults) making taxable gains in 2017-18 – equivalent to £210,000 each - 62 per cent (£34 billion) went to just 9,000 people who each realised over £1 million in gains. The flow of these very large gains tripled between 2012-13 and 2017-18, explaining 69 per cent of total capital gains growth over this period.

extracted from the Report's Executive Summary

Another indication of the extent of unequal distribution of income (& wealth) in the United Kingdom and hopefully, a harbinger of changes in attitudes.

"How sad. That someone thinks we should gear everything to the fraction of people who would screw the system, at the expense of the overwhelming majority who behave decently and in the main would rather earn their living than be given it." bensherman's post #28

…It is …giving straight from the rich who pay most of the taxes to the people lower down the scale, Rishi [Sunak, Chancellor] should be renamed Robin [Hood?]
The support is amazingly generous 80% to stay at home for many is the best deal they have ever or will ever have and mostly paid for by wealthy tax payers.

local's post #29 alluding to #28 (above)

Some of us defend the status quo with inexplicable tenacity, but

…who really benefits from HMRC largess?

**grassroots** · 22/05/2020 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by muddyboots

this idiot wants to extend the skivers payroll till october....you would have to be very stupid to go back to work if he is paying your wages to stay at home with your feet up....he must be the dumbest person in govt that i have ever known..since neville chamberlin....get him removed and boris who i once had faith in and has now been found wanting!!!...im utterly furious!!

What qualifies the likes of you to criticise him.???

**local** · 22/05/2020 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by grassroots

What qualifies the likes of you to criticise him.???

We have a lot of armchair professors on here for which I am eternally grateful for their insight and learned opinion.

Not least on the Coronavirus their hindsight observations are the pillars of this countries academic prowess.

Some knew when and how to do everything, it's surely a gift and certainly one I haven't got.

I look to their daily Nostradamus inspired predictions as to how the economy and the public health will react.

Some I believe are followers of the sect of Corb.

**sandGroundZero** · 22/05/2020 11:27 AM

There is a demonstrable pattern of income gains accruing to a very small proportion (i.e. <1%) of the population — at the top of the distribution pyramid.

Name: Who gains_Fig4_p21.png
Views: 0
Size: 40.2 KB

To put it bluntly, the benefits of economic growth have gone to the 1‰. Inequality has been allowed to revert to levels comparable to the belle époque when the very poorest dropped out the bottom of society.

Name: Who gains_Fig6_p22.png
Views: 0
Size: 33.2 KB

Name: Who gains_Fig6_p22.png
Views: 0
Size: 33.2 KB

graphs courtesy Resolution Foundation's Who gains?

Governments since the 1970s including the 1997-2010 Labour administration have effectively promoted socioeconomic inequality notwithstanding some Blair-era attempts at remediation (e.g. Sure Start).

Why have (especially Labour) governments declined to address growing inequality?
The root of the problem is the profound inadequacy of our political institutions along with a wilful and often self-serving blindness to those inadequacies.

**Hamble** · 22/05/2020 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by sandGroundZero

There is a demonstrable pattern of income gains accruing to a very small proportion (i.e. <1%) of the population — at the top of the distribution pyramid.

To put it bluntly, the benefits of economic growth have gone to the 1‰. Inequality has been allowed to revert to levels comparable to the belle époque when the very poorest dropped out the bottom of society.

Name: Who gains_Fig6_p22.png
Views: 0
Size: 33.2 KB

Governments since the 1970s including the 1997-2010 Labour administration have effectively promoted socioeconomic inequality notwithstanding some Blair-era attempts at remediation (e.g. Sure Start.

Why have (especially Labour) governments declined to address growing inequality?
The root of the problem is the profound inadequacy of our political institutions along with a wilful and often self-serving blindness to those inadequacies.

One would have to be anti EU to do it so here's hoping now Brexit will make a change.

**Albion102** · 22/05/2020 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ceam

There are three options...

1. He's only been self employed for a short length of time and isn't able to claim.

2. While he claims to support the system, He's not payed a penny in as he gets paid cash and doesn't pay his taxes.

3. He's an idiot with no business sense.

As soon as the self-employed scheme was announced, I thought that the significant numbers of cash in hand merchants would finally find their chickens coming home to roost.

Thread: rishi sunak the stupidest chancellor in the history of britain

Thread Tools

Latest UK News by Qlocal - Have Your Say

User Control Panel

Member Login

Not a Member? Sign Up!