@@22Phantasm you are right but if me or you had a good few million abroad the UK would want their pound of flesh.to me if someone lives in UK full time and owns a house how can you not be domiciled in UK
Did the recent King of England pay his full inheritance tax? Same question for all other wealthy elite. Hunt can never be challenged, because his master oligarchs hold all the strings.
Because they let the government/ international Woke finance rule over them. They deserve everything they get. Populist Right and populist Left need to find common ground ASP.
So the targeted way is to tax those on middle incomes. I'm on 27K a year, have a mortage and live on my own with asthma. I can't afford to turn my heating on to help with asthma, getting constantly ill, don't qualify for any help. I've had enough of this govt, like most people, just want a GE to get the tories out of power, they are inept.
£27k would be a financial paradise for many people. What you omit to say is that the cost of living is widely different depending on where you reside. Or that, regrettably, many in the middle consider their lifestyles more essential than the basics but prefer to whine about poverty when they’re not entitled to. No government is going to sort out the economic mess created by the get on and we’re behind you ideology society has become entranced by. The same goes for the assumed entitlement to a lifestyle.
How was this 'debunking', or 'ripping apart' anything? (I watched so the clickbait worked didn't it....) All the answers were generally along the lines of "the budget was reasonable based on the current situation". To be honest it was nice to see a fair question from Emma Hardy and a balanced response from all participants. As funny as Select Committee fights are I wish more had valued discourse like this.
It was. That's just how people in the public sector who want to move up the ranks one day speak. Unnecessary praise of the bare minimum and gentle suggestions for improvememt
@@steph6109 They are called experts, but do not deal with numbers. How can you say anything useful on economics without numerical precision? This is waffly news reporter level opinion.
It's not "our money". If I pay you, the money is now yours. The whole "our money" argument is just divisive rhetoric that doesn't solve the problem and plays into the Tories hands. Public spending is vital to an economy and the Tories refuse to accept that, we should be hammering them on public spending and how their policies affect the poor, not making silly soundbites about "it's taxpayers money", Republicans in America always complain about spending taxpayer money and holy fuck I don't want us to ever sound like that.
@andi shaw depends what they spend it on I personally don't agree to fund war budgets but did I get a vote on that? They've just announced cuts to public spending they've told us we need to pay m9re for public spending apart from hs2 where is this public money going? Food banks energy levies infrastructure. Schools??? Nah its not is it why are you using American politics as an example why is that relevant to us? Are you English are you happy with the way our government spends our money??
@@jamesnulty3680 If it's "our money" when it's something you disagree with , but not what you like the policy, you don't really think it's "our money", you are just voicing your disagreement to how the government spends, which is totally fair enough man. Both parties spend money on war, and were voted in, we don't get a choice in the war part cos both parties love wars. But we get a choice as to if we spend of healthcare or if we raise benefits or not, because those are different policies between Tories and Labour. For me, taxes aren't our money, but that doesn't mean I don't care what the government does and doesn't spend on, and I think thats way more important than arguing "who" the money belongs to, right?
I have never seen any government giving out as many handouts as this government has which includes immigrants and covid victims.This situation is not as bad as the 1970s.
Notice how everything that was discussed was about asset holders and how to retain the value of their assets? If you're not an asset holder, prepare to get WAY more fucked so the wealth taken from you can be used to pay off people's mortgages and capital gains losses.
I'm sorry to say that the current government has had more than enough chances to get its house in order. Different faces, same failed policies. A general election is well overdue!
Exactly! At least someone sees the evil WEF tendrils at work. I can't believe people aren't sering that they've silenced socialist voices, have used medical authoritarianism and hygeine propaganda, have used transhumanist eugenics agendas on people, and have incepted both wings of our government. These aren't elected policies, or unforeseen circumstances. This is the Great Reset plan in action. We no longer live in a democracy. If these WEF puppets are chased out of the country along with the CCP loyalists, then the UK is fooked.
I'd like to see MPs cutting back by staying in an "MPs hostel" during the week and scrapping the need for second homes and scrapping their claims for heating and getting rid of the grace and favour properties.
I've been arguing this for a long time. Last year the budget for MP's rent, utilities, internet, phone, and accommodation was £10.5m in total. The travel allowance is around £2.5m. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but when the starting wage of an MP is already over 4× the minimum wage, is there a reason to give an additional 40% or more by means of a home. Their argument is that no one will want the job is there aren't these benefits, but these benefits are more than double people with Universal and PIP combined can. Anyone else that moves for their work has to find their own home. I'd love to see how well MP's would do in getting a home if they put on their application that it would be paid for with DSS.
@@thegreyarea-WPP so you expect someone working for a company to subsidise that company for things like staying in another location for work? You do understand that the expenses are for running the office of the MP. It’s not just them. Agree that there is a bit of a gravy train there but why should they pay for everything just because they are an MP which might only last 4 years. Now when they were buying houses with subsidised mortgages flipping them and making a guaranteed profit that was disgraceful and they ended that eventually.
@@davideyres955 How many jobs pay for a family house rental as part of the job? Plus all utilities, internet, and phone? Millions of people have to relocate for work. They still have to pay their own rent and bills where they move to. Why should MP's be any different? How many doctors are able to claim benefits to cover a 4 bedroom house complete with all bills paid, whilst earning a wage more than enough to cover the cost of that? If you think it's OK for MP's to have that level of benefits whilst the 25% of nurses are having to use food banks then that's your view, but not one I can level with whilst the government has led to 14.5m people being below the poverty line in this country. Housing has gone from being 3× the average annual salary to 24× the average in 35 years. With rent prices higher than mortgage prices and a constant increase in these prices as a direct result of government actions, why should MP's get what is essentially benefits money at 4× the benefits rate for those below the poverty line whilst earning more than 4× the minimum wage in salary? When a business is struggling one thing many do is consolidate areas, reduce the number of area mangers, and cut unnecessary costs. 75% of people don't know who their local MP is. People just know that whilst they are making huge cuts with no hope for improvement for the next 2 years, after huge periods of austerity which have seen higher than inflation pay rises for MP's, they are still getting more benefits than the chronically disabled. It's sickening at times like now.
It’s interesting that all governments seem to be experts when it’s a planned or intended policy yet when it’s dealing with the problems inevitably caused by those so called policies it’s all hands in the air, ‘we couldn’t have seen this coming, it’s unprecedented circumstances’….
@@erict.watson2460 Value is something defined by those considering themselves of highest value and those below of lowest value which explains why pay is so imbalanced and state benefits are required. It’s odd how those working overtime are praised whilst those filling every hour with work related activities are praised too. Perhaps we need a society that sees work hours as something to reduce rather than increase to exhibit one’s egotism about contributing more and being entitled to more. Force everyone above a certain salary into part time hours unless they’re entrepreneurial enough to take the risk of establishing a company and we’d see growth explode, or reality emerge over the true value of what many consider within themselves to be valuable exposed.
Kwasi's budget was a mess, Hunts budget is a mess. Benefits did need to go up with inflation without a doubt, but those not eligible for benefits are also being hit hard.
Any reason why this subcommittee does not only go to noted academics - as opposed to inviting and therefore adding credibility to shady (if not dodgy) think tanks?
Context is everything friend. The IFS is probably the most transparent thinktank out there, and a lot of those who work for them are qualified economists, the head of the IFS is currently a professor of economics from UCL. While I agree that thinktanks (specifically shady ones) have are way overrepresented and held up way beyond their worth, this is not an instance of that. Thinktanks usually have noted academics working for them, academics and thinktanks are not mutually exclusive.
@@andishawjfac The IFS is very "economically liberal" in its bias. Everything in its statements points to balanced budgets and low government spending, all the time.
@@farhadchaudhry Balancing one’s outgoings to one’s income is sound financial planning. Low spending regarding dismissing vanity infrastructure projects designed to win votes is also sound. Perhaps PPE is about philosophically spinning economics to support political futures. Maybe that’s why so many Oxford graduates mess things up so spectacularly once in ministerial positions.
@@brynleytalbot778 It seems like sound financial planning, and it is for citizens and many companies, but it's not for governments all the time. Balancing budgets continually in environments of having large trade deficits is a death knell for the economy over the long term. It's why Tories come into office, try austerity, then backtrack over time. Also, not all public spending is the same. Propping up an ageing population is not as economically beneficial as investing in infrastructure and getting skilled people into work and encourage them creating competitive businesses that utilises capital more efficiently than in generating rent. But the votes are in the pensioner block and the donors are in the rent seeking block. That's why politicians appease them constantly. The IFS does not make these distinctions in its "analysis".
02:40 in India which has common blackouts, they have different tariffs so that even poor people can afford a modest amount of electricity in their homes. Everybody is entitled to the first 1000 or so units at a subsidised rate, even rich people, however the following rate for those who want to use a little bit more is at market rates, and tariff above that is at even higher rate that only rich could possibly afford that helps to subsidise the cheaper rates. Has this government not bothered to look at how other countries ration energy as they surely can't believe that this one capped tariff for all is fair or will curb the consumption of the rich who pay little of their energy bill as a percentage of their incomes? 🤦🏽♂️
This has to be the correct way to price elasticity, get rid of the standing charge and ramp up the price if you have big greedy requirements. It wouldn't be hard to cap bills for people who need power for life saving medical equipment.
@@onlyme8117 I'm British actually, but I don't get what you're trying to prove here, that the UK has a single unfair tariff and India doesn't because of the foreign aid sent there? Because it turns out that the UK sends India a little over £300 million annually according to The Independent Commission for AID Impact, to a country with a nominal GDP of $3.47 trillion dollars whose public expenditure is $990 billion annually. Our Energy Cap Scheme is going to cost £90 billion till April next year, how is fretting over the aid sent to India, £300 million (which isn't without strings btw) which a mere THIRD of ONE percent of the Price Cap budget. Going by your comment, one would think Britain is carrying helpless India on its back with its massive generosity. 🤡 In any case the ENTIRE Foreign AID budget at £11 billion is barely half of the increase of the debt repayment rises that were caused in the aftermath of the Truss and Kwarteng mini-budget fiasco. There may well be a good case for cutting foreign aid, but it's laughable to suggest it's a priority to target in light of the scale of the problems the UK faces, especially when considering doubling the UK foreign budget would have had much less of an impact on public finances than Truss's mini-budget did on the cost of public borrowing. Back to the original topic, even if the UK were literally paying for India's electricity, space program, free stuff etc, it doesn't mean that we can't implement a better way to distribute and pay for electricity here, given that we are likely going to have blackouts soon due to a lack of proper energy rationing.
Of course not, for all the pretense of "compassionate conservatism" these are a bunch of ideologues who think the poor deserve to suffer for being poor and that the rich are unfairly treated and shouldn't be paying "proportional" taxes. Even if it is logical, they plain do not want to because they only protect their own...
@@giansideros one criticism is that there is not a single UK tariff, and that the least capable get the worst (prepay meters) deal of all. These meters should not be allowed - they are a legal poverty tax and do nothing to protect the customer, they exist to protect the profits of the suppliers.
A fair structure would be to assess the energy requirements of each individual dwelling and assign a basic heat, light, and drain by essential appliances, to set a kWh consumption per year for which a lower tariff would apply. Anything above that would be scaled up until absurd consumption is penalised by a very high tariff. It’s probably evident that high tariffs have reduced consumption for many to the point some are in energy poverty living without adequate heat, light, and cooking but for many more they’re obstinate and feckless with waste to depict how much they can spend. Call it virtue signalling one’s financial excess. Society can’t afford this behaviour especially when all it achieves is inflated profits for the energy sector, or is that the point when those users are overpaid too in sectors that also return far too much profit. Has avariciousness and narcissistic entitlement defined a sector of society to the point it can’t see its own excess is destroying everyone else.
@D C have, have, have. Not of. Should have. As in "should have listened in school during basic English lessons". If you're going to be mean to others then expect it back. If you're reasonable to others then it will come back to you as well. :-) 600% rise in house prices through deliberate under supply, over the past 30 years. 200% rise in wages in the same time which means a 400% deficit in affordability. It's deliberate under supply which is forcing up prices. The government could set laws in place in order to increase house building but if they do this then they won't get so many kickbacks, but the country will be more competitive. Corrupt politicians are negatively affecting our economy and making Britain less competitive with the world.
Just over 30 years ago the interest was higher still. Not much help for those struggling now, and it resulted in many foreclosures at the time. It seems the incessant march of property price increases may not be beneficial (apart from to the few) ... and that the market has learnt nothing from relatively recent history.
I’m waiting for MPs to grant themselves a massive pay and allowance rise. I still do not understand why energy prices can only get more expensive, if not for this obsession with renewables, as the Chinese lady clearly stated that we must accept the pain to save the planet. These people are mad.
2:00 so 41 days is a long way off.... sure if you're rich and thinking of your next skiing holiday ..... meanwhile the rich get richer....and there's no "trickle down economics"... Nanny makes the marmalade...and well Bentley's are tanks.
The most important thing that is missed is that none of this will be paid for until the new parliament/ government. So he hasn't balanced the books or solved ANYTHING! He has kicked the can down the road for Labour to have to sort out when they come in.
@@kirishima638 Oh goody, someone that copies smart sounding words to deflate that you do not understand their own argument. The OP is commenting on that money is being sent to France and Ukraine (inferred in a negative light sure). You comment that due to it being a small amount of money, we should not care about where it is going. I use an example of a small amount of money causing harm and people caring, undermining your point. Because OP is right, we should challenge and be aware for where public money is going and that we as the public agrees with it. Take Ukraine, I personally do not like us sending 'lethal' aid but could use hat money with rebuilding funds and supporting refugees. Get the straw out of your head friend 😊
And don’t get me started on inheritance tax because people who have saved up to give to their families after they die have already paid tax on that money they’ve saved so why should it then be taxed more?! Where Tf is all this money going?!?!
It is going in the Tory parties mates pockets. As for the point on inheritance tax, is it right people work hard, pay tax but never accumulate a enough wealth to buy a house? Therefore have limited assets. Meanwhile millionaire’s pay next nothing in tax, relative to their wage and then avoid most the inheritance tax through bought loopholes. Not to mention the current generation passing on estate, have taken more out than they paid in on average
@@ozjob inheritance tax is a fine initiative, it aims to prevent familial hoarding of gross wealth across generations without re-investment. However, its current setup targets estates worth a median amount and impacts normal families way too much. The super rich just put everything in "trust" to avoid it anyway. It's just a broken tax, yet another symptom of a broken system.
@D C drains the NHS, so a healthy work force is a drain. As for benefits most people on them, work. So make companies pay a fair wage and not us subsidising their profits. Stop reading the right wing tabloids. They are full of 💩.
Nothing mentioned about the stealth tax we are paying for. It was sneaked into the budget. Giving struggling people on benefits a loan funded by public money to prop up the housing market. In a sence its a loan to pay for a mortgage loan. Carnt see nothing going wrong with that. Don’t worry tho we will just pay the extra tax to help them while struggling ourselves to pay our Loans without help. Makes you wonder what these people are doing. Are they there to reinforce the budget and to make us accept it.
So talking about “fairer taxes” no one is talking about taxing the rich and forcing companies to pay their taxes so we wouldn’t have as many issues … I mean gods forbid anyone except the workers actually pay anything!!!
@@gazza8524 I’m just done! I’m exhausted after going through chemo with no financial help, then Covid lockdowns with no financial help and now getting hammered by these tax rises. I need a break from the whole thing, not a load more complications of re-locating my business to another country.
I don't understand this videos title, none of them debunked anything, if anything they seemed relatively complimentary. Does this channel just write the most clickbaity title they can and then hope people don't notice the video?
Instead of pursuing net zero and the green agenda perhaps the last 12 years of tory government should have invested in British energy, In other words our own energy instead of relying on overseas energy , By that course of action we stopped building power stations and closed them, but didn't it make the UKs net zero look good, We are paying for the tories mistakes in so many areas they are absolutely useless. I would call them a shower of bounders !
We are told that over 50% of the UKs energy now comes from renewable sources yet our energy bills seem to be rising more than the rest of Europe but I don't remember sunshine or wind becoming more expensive. BTW, we are paying £1billion annually to energy companies for wind generators to be turned off because the national grid can't cope with the amount of electricity being generated. I don't think building more power stations is going to help.
Actually it was the Lib Dems during the coalition who vetoed new nuclear power stations as they wouldnt come online for 10 years ... if we had had a purely tory govt till 2015 those nuclear power stations they were planning might be online now ..
Yes .. the top 1% of earners already pay 25% of all income taxes .. 45p top rate of tax is pretty much accepted as optimal .. any more than that and the amount you raise actually goes down .. Multi national companies have armies of tax lawyers and it costs so much to go after them so they "agree" tax bills .. if the taxes in a given country is too much the multi national just packs up and leaves with the hit to employment and the economy
Why does government means test help for energy? Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply tax those on higher incomes more so in effect taking the cap benefits away from wealthy households?
I dont agree raising the bottom rate threshold gives everyone the kings tenner by example, for some a tenner a week is life and death for others its a couple of designer coffees in a coffee house
No it doesn't. Over a certain amount of earnings and the wealthy lose their personal allowances. So raising personal allowances would take the poorest out of the tax system without benefiting the wealthy. Just looked it up and the income limit is £100,000.
@@stephengraham1153 Simple math, if you are a 16k a year shop worker you would pay circa 686 per year tax. If the basic allowance was raised to 16k you wouldn't pay tax
@@paulwebster4499 The key word in your original comment was "everyone". If you earn over £100,000 then an increase in personal allowances makes no difference. Fact.
@@stephengraham1153 sorry . my point is someone on 16 k 17k a year would be thankful of a higher starting tax threshold they would need it. Someone on 50 60 k a year, the tax that they wouldn't pay (the same amount) they would be able to spend it on things that they want Need and want, two different things
@@stephengraham1153 My point is a 17500 worker or pensioner after his current tax allowance of 12570 would pay 20% of 4930 = 986 per anumn. if the tax allowance was increased to 16000 he/she would pay 300 per anumn a saving of 686 per year. A 50000 worker after his /her tax allowance would pay 7486 tax. if the tax allowance was increased to 16000 he/she would pay 6800 per anumn a saving of 686 per year. Or 13.19 less tax eah per year. For the lower paid shop worker or pensioner an extra 13.19 per week would or could, be the difference between life and death. For the 50000 a year guy the 13.19 per week would or should maybe buy them a few extra things that they wanted I hope that's clear
For years Gen X and Millennials have been told they don't save enough. So, yeah, now they've had a decent chance to save they're going to hold on to those savings.
What savings? One in 5 of us has no savings whatsoever .. its recommended to have 3 to 6 months salary in the bank how many people have that? If we all had that there would be no need for bailouts and food banks
Of course it was a fair budget,the burden placed firmly on the poorest as always with the Tories.A good question would have been where do the Government think the ordinary people are going to raise the extra money,from a fixed income, as costs rise every week.
Its MADNESS that during this crisis government intend to go ahead with NON URGENT projects like the HS2, all non essential projects should be halted until we see some light at the end of this never ending tunnel of darkness we were thrust into in 2010 with austerity, also all (non essential) expense claims for (MP's/MLA's) should be suspended.
(Lady) Pff.., Silvia Hermon claimed £2 for 2 bunches of daffodils for her constituency office in 2015, she blamed the claim on a secretary yet WHO provided the secretary with the receipt???, we need a top down change of government ASAP.
Living standards have dropped like a stone while inflation is rising and so has interest rates, taxes while services are going to be cut . There will be very few who are not negatively impacted. Why did we bail out Bulb energy a private company with over 4 billion. Usual heads you win tails we lose.
Hold on, why the Daily Express style headline here? I listened to the very well articulated and logical answers to the Select Committee questions, there was not the slightest element of ‘debunking’. Yet the Autumn statement contained many gaps and areas where clarity was required. Suggest you change the headline.
Financially crippling the very people you need to fulfill the day to day tasks of keeping the UK solvent seems a rather strange strategy to me but at least the bankers bonuses are locked at only 200% bless em !!!!
I'm wondering what a person who reads body language would make of this video Joe? The twitching, the fidgeting & looking down tells me they aren't able to answer or willing to answer truthfully. How does the Government employ so many dodgy personnel who sympathise more with the chancellor than they do the public who are paying for the @Conservatives rainbow unicorns. #NHSPay15 #GTTO #UnisonVoteYes #RCNsolidarity
Guys fyi the first guy is from the resolution foundation, it's a foundation that aims to increase the living standards of working and middle class families. These are not conservatives in fact many are left leaning economists just answering straight questions. There's not alot they could haver changed in the budget, because that's how f*'d we are as a country. WHY we are where we are is a different story.
Debunking? Their words seemed anything but. Mostly it was expressions of pleasant surprise, giving justifications for the terrible parts and huge leniency for Hunt due to his brief tenure. The budget is terrible and the harm it inflicts is a political choice. But this clip was absolutely anything but a debunking.
Good to know that at least the bankster bonusses can skyrocket without a limit !! Congrats !! the normal people getting poorer but richy rich is getting more wealthy ... so all going as per STory party plan !! congrats also to this !
Of course MPs don't care! We pay their heating bills & expenses! As well as their salaries! They're sitting in hot houses, eating what they want with subsided meals in the HofC, while the rest of us plan, cut & struggle! Disgusting!
Where are the economists? Where is the "debunking" This is not the first MISLEADING title and it is becoming a bit of a pattern. If I want to see politics Joe videos in future I will search for them. Unsubscribed.
Anyone who thinks that people with savings would suddenly start spending it with the economy the way it is, and with the future looking so bleak and uncertain, is absolutely certifiably insane.
Energy price guarantee and money towards bills should have gone to poor people, not everyone. The givernment must also ramp up their spending on renewable energy. It's the only sensible thing to do.
There is a mathematical and fiscally economical way to increase NIC and Basic Rate income Tax to £30,000 making the average worker £650 better off and benefiting all earning up to £200,000.
There is no money left after Rishi Sunak proudly gave it away as chancellor. Interest payments on our collective debt cost all of us collectively approx.£2,000,000,000 per week. So no, there won't be any more help for the less fortunate and yes, there will be more nurses queing at the food banks not less. Yet it is stated here that some people are using their money to pay off their mortgages instead of spending it and helping the economy.
Debunking Jeremy Hunt's Budget i.e. what he should have done:- 1) Increase the top rate of Tax to 50% for individuals earning over and above £150,000. 2) Increase the Personal Tax Threshold to at least 15K, followed by 17.5K and then 20K by 2025. 3) Equalise Capital Gains/Income Tax/Dividend Tax at the same rate. 4) Replace Business Rates with LVT. 5) Increase the Windfall Tax to 50% and backdate it to the start of the pandemic. 6) Free up to 1.2 million SME's from paying Corporation Tax (over 80% of companies) by lifting the minimum threshold to £100,000. Subsequently raise the rate from 19% to 20%. 7) Carbon tax at £250 per metric tonne 8) 10% buyers tax on foreign home ownership and companies that own UK residential/commercial property 9) Increase the Digital Services Tax from the current rate of 2% to 5% to ensure tech giants pay their fair share. 10) Merge income tax and both employee and employer National Insurance contributions into a single system rate to boost transparency.
"Economists concede the challenges facing any government trying to address the UK's situation and give credit where efforts were made to protect people." There, fixed that grossly inaccurate summary for you. Jesus Christ, Joe Politics really has become a tabloid level rag recently.
Also..what about us single parents who are earning too much to claim anything. I have a shared ownership property. I need to refix my mortgage next year amd my rent portion will be massively increased. Fuel, food etc etc. I won't be able to afford to live next year. Rentals in my area are just as expensive. What will happen to people like me at risk of losing our homes... well educated in a good job and still struggling to make ends meet...this is a disgrace..thanks tory government!! Accumulate savings...pleasant thought but everything had to go into a deposit for a house to have some security for raising my child which I could lose
In August 2015, the department admitted using fictional stories from made-up claimants on leaflets advertising the positive impact of benefit sanctions, following a Freedom of Information request from Welfare Weekly, claiming that they were for "illustrative purposes only" and that it was "quite wrong" to pass these off as genuine quotes.
Is it a key good that we import? How much do we import from this key good? Because I heard a lot of people saying that we're practically independent of Russian gas. Are we dependent on Russian gas, or YOU ARE JUST CROOKS?
Governments mismanagement or indeed management of money is the reason why these situations happen. The transfer of money is evident in ALL governments. When you sit on the top of the mountain, you don't cut off your air supply ...
The economy is in a mssive hole and the budget dealt with that. A massive hole the tories played a part in creating but that is another point altogether. Tax reciepts are down badly cause trade is massivly down, so businesses are making way less money and are paying way less taxes. Less taxes means higher tax rates....
Hunt said 'Everyone will be taxed' just prior to his budget. Weirdly (sic) non-doms weren't taxed. So Hunt lied. Why is this not challenged?
Non Dom's pay tax on what they earn in UK not what the earn abroad
@@joeoria4497 I know, but the non-dom tax problem is because of what they earn abroad.
@@22Phantasm you are right but if me or you had a good few million abroad the UK would want their pound of flesh.to me if someone
lives in UK full time and owns a house how can you not be domiciled in UK
Did the recent King of England pay his full inheritance tax? Same question for all other wealthy elite. Hunt can never be challenged, because his master oligarchs hold all the strings.
@@sn0ttie Absolutely, and this is why these needs to be publicly challenged... ad nauseum.
Don’t forget the shareholders are not going without their profits. Tax the rich before penalising the poor 😐
Why should the public pay for the government's mistakes
Yep, we are in a recession created by the actions of this government and every previous Tory government dating back to 2016.
Because they let the government/ international Woke finance rule over them. They deserve everything they get.
Populist Right and populist Left need to find common ground ASP.
Why should we pay their salaries?
That's representative democracy.
Duh! Because it would hurt the rich 🤣
So the targeted way is to tax those on middle incomes. I'm on 27K a year, have a mortage and live on my own with asthma. I can't afford to turn my heating on to help with asthma, getting constantly ill, don't qualify for any help. I've had enough of this govt, like most people, just want a GE to get the tories out of power, they are inept.
Either inept or (as some would argue) very competent .. it's just that _you_ are not the intended beneficiary of their policies.
£27k would be a financial paradise for many people. What you omit to say is that the cost of living is widely different depending on where you reside. Or that, regrettably, many in the middle consider their lifestyles more essential than the basics but prefer to whine about poverty when they’re not entitled to. No government is going to sort out the economic mess created by the get on and we’re behind you ideology society has become entranced by. The same goes for the assumed entitlement to a lifestyle.
How was this 'debunking', or 'ripping apart' anything? (I watched so the clickbait worked didn't it....) All the answers were generally along the lines of "the budget was reasonable based on the current situation". To be honest it was nice to see a fair question from Emma Hardy and a balanced response from all participants. As funny as Select Committee fights are I wish more had valued discourse like this.
Yeah, this whole thing was pretty much "the budget certainly has some issues, but we expected far worse" in the most neutral tone possible
My thoughts exactly! Not exactly a scathing critique.
It was. That's just how people in the public sector who want to move up the ranks one day speak.
Unnecessary praise of the bare minimum and gentle suggestions for improvememt
This channel has let itself go recently
@@steph6109 They are called experts, but do not deal with numbers. How can you say anything useful on economics without numerical precision? This is waffly news reporter level opinion.
"What he did was good of him" its our bloody money.
It's not "our money". If I pay you, the money is now yours.
The whole "our money" argument is just divisive rhetoric that doesn't solve the problem and plays into the Tories hands.
Public spending is vital to an economy and the Tories refuse to accept that, we should be hammering them on public spending and how their policies affect the poor, not making silly soundbites about "it's taxpayers money", Republicans in America always complain about spending taxpayer money and holy fuck I don't want us to ever sound like that.
@andi shaw depends what they spend it on I personally don't agree to fund war budgets but did I get a vote on that? They've just announced cuts to public spending they've told us we need to pay m9re for public spending apart from hs2 where is this public money going? Food banks energy levies infrastructure. Schools??? Nah its not is it why are you using American politics as an example why is that relevant to us? Are you English are you happy with the way our government spends our money??
I just don't agree with the statement " it was good of him" really??
@@jamesnulty3680
If it's "our money" when it's something you disagree with , but not what you like the policy, you don't really think it's "our money", you are just voicing your disagreement to how the government spends, which is totally fair enough man.
Both parties spend money on war, and were voted in, we don't get a choice in the war part cos both parties love wars. But we get a choice as to if we spend of healthcare or if we raise benefits or not, because those are different policies between Tories and Labour.
For me, taxes aren't our money, but that doesn't mean I don't care what the government does and doesn't spend on, and I think thats way more important than arguing "who" the money belongs to, right?
@andi shaw correct.
It's fare if you expect the poorest in society to pay the most. It's the Tory parties party way.
I see what you did there, it is indeed a high “fare”
Not since the brexshit ride started, it's been hold on tight to a stool party.
I have never seen any government giving out as many handouts as this government has which includes immigrants and covid victims.This situation is not as bad as the 1970s.
@@shadrana1 Amazing how much you see with your eyes closed as tight as the Conservatives' grip around this country's throat.
They dont pay "the most" they pay soething and there's a lot of them.
Notice how everything that was discussed was about asset holders and how to retain the value of their assets? If you're not an asset holder, prepare to get WAY more fucked so the wealth taken from you can be used to pay off people's mortgages and capital gains losses.
and they want the only assets we have, our homes. then rent back to us at a profit
The banking system is all about inflating asset prices. Both Left and Right need to understand this.
I'm sorry to say that the current government has had more than enough chances to get its house in order. Different faces, same failed policies. A general election is well overdue!
It’s worth reflecting on how short a time he has had to get this right … twelve years innit ?
1. Complicit: if you think Hunt is doing a good job you are complicit and WEF partners, take note of which side they are on ..
Exactly! At least someone sees the evil WEF tendrils at work.
I can't believe people aren't sering that they've silenced socialist voices, have used medical authoritarianism and hygeine propaganda, have used transhumanist eugenics agendas on people, and have incepted both wings of our government.
These aren't elected policies, or unforeseen circumstances. This is the Great Reset plan in action.
We no longer live in a democracy. If these WEF puppets are chased out of the country along with the CCP loyalists, then the UK is fooked.
I'd like to see MPs cutting back by staying in an "MPs hostel" during the week and scrapping the need for second homes and scrapping their claims for heating and getting rid of the grace and favour properties.
👏👏👏👍
Good call
I've been arguing this for a long time. Last year the budget for MP's rent, utilities, internet, phone, and accommodation was £10.5m in total. The travel allowance is around £2.5m. It's not much in the grand scheme of things, but when the starting wage of an MP is already over 4× the minimum wage, is there a reason to give an additional 40% or more by means of a home.
Their argument is that no one will want the job is there aren't these benefits, but these benefits are more than double people with Universal and PIP combined can. Anyone else that moves for their work has to find their own home. I'd love to see how well MP's would do in getting a home if they put on their application that it would be paid for with DSS.
@@thegreyarea-WPP so you expect someone working for a company to subsidise that company for things like staying in another location for work? You do understand that the expenses are for running the office of the MP. It’s not just them. Agree that there is a bit of a gravy train there but why should they pay for everything just because they are an MP which might only last 4 years.
Now when they were buying houses with subsidised mortgages flipping them and making a guaranteed profit that was disgraceful and they ended that eventually.
@@davideyres955 How many jobs pay for a family house rental as part of the job? Plus all utilities, internet, and phone? Millions of people have to relocate for work. They still have to pay their own rent and bills where they move to. Why should MP's be any different? How many doctors are able to claim benefits to cover a 4 bedroom house complete with all bills paid, whilst earning a wage more than enough to cover the cost of that? If you think it's OK for MP's to have that level of benefits whilst the 25% of nurses are having to use food banks then that's your view, but not one I can level with whilst the government has led to 14.5m people being below the poverty line in this country. Housing has gone from being 3× the average annual salary to 24× the average in 35 years. With rent prices higher than mortgage prices and a constant increase in these prices as a direct result of government actions, why should MP's get what is essentially benefits money at 4× the benefits rate for those below the poverty line whilst earning more than 4× the minimum wage in salary? When a business is struggling one thing many do is consolidate areas, reduce the number of area mangers, and cut unnecessary costs. 75% of people don't know who their local MP is. People just know that whilst they are making huge cuts with no hope for improvement for the next 2 years, after huge periods of austerity which have seen higher than inflation pay rises for MP's, they are still getting more benefits than the chronically disabled. It's sickening at times like now.
It’s interesting that all governments seem to be experts when it’s a planned or intended policy yet when it’s dealing with the problems inevitably caused by those so called policies it’s all hands in the air, ‘we couldn’t have seen this coming, it’s unprecedented circumstances’….
Why is the Taxpayer paying for all the MP energy
A case of I'm all right Jack.
Because the MPs voted for this to be the case and so it should be because they are excellent value for money?
@@erict.watson2460 Value is something defined by those considering themselves of highest value and those below of lowest value which explains why pay is so imbalanced and state benefits are required. It’s odd how those working overtime are praised whilst those filling every hour with work related activities are praised too. Perhaps we need a society that sees work hours as something to reduce rather than increase to exhibit one’s egotism about contributing more and being entitled to more. Force everyone above a certain salary into part time hours unless they’re entrepreneurial enough to take the risk of establishing a company and we’d see growth explode, or reality emerge over the true value of what many consider within themselves to be valuable exposed.
Kwasi's budget was a mess, Hunts budget is a mess. Benefits did need to go up with inflation without a doubt, but those not eligible for benefits are also being hit hard.
Spot on
Own nothing and be happy, that's what you get having a wef puppet in number 10.
Excellent comment
Tell me what working man ever sees growth ? They see growth we see debt till death !
The only sure thing in life is death and taxes.
Any reason why this subcommittee does not only go to noted academics - as opposed to inviting and therefore adding credibility to shady (if not dodgy) think tanks?
Context is everything friend. The IFS is probably the most transparent thinktank out there, and a lot of those who work for them are qualified economists, the head of the IFS is currently a professor of economics from UCL.
While I agree that thinktanks (specifically shady ones) have are way overrepresented and held up way beyond their worth, this is not an instance of that.
Thinktanks usually have noted academics working for them, academics and thinktanks are not mutually exclusive.
@@andishawjfac The IFS is very "economically liberal" in its bias. Everything in its statements points to balanced budgets and low government spending, all the time.
@@farhadchaudhry Balancing one’s outgoings to one’s income is sound financial planning. Low spending regarding dismissing vanity infrastructure projects designed to win votes is also sound. Perhaps PPE is about philosophically spinning economics to support political futures. Maybe that’s why so many Oxford graduates mess things up so spectacularly once in ministerial positions.
@@brynleytalbot778 It seems like sound financial planning, and it is for citizens and many companies, but it's not for governments all the time.
Balancing budgets continually in environments of having large trade deficits is a death knell for the economy over the long term. It's why Tories come into office, try austerity, then backtrack over time.
Also, not all public spending is the same. Propping up an ageing population is not as economically beneficial as investing in infrastructure and getting skilled people into work and encourage them creating competitive businesses that utilises capital more efficiently than in generating rent.
But the votes are in the pensioner block and the donors are in the rent seeking block. That's why politicians appease them constantly.
The IFS does not make these distinctions in its "analysis".
02:40 in India which has common blackouts, they have different tariffs so that even poor people can afford a modest amount of electricity in their homes. Everybody is entitled to the first 1000 or so units at a subsidised rate, even rich people, however the following rate for those who want to use a little bit more is at market rates, and tariff above that is at even higher rate that only rich could possibly afford that helps to subsidise the cheaper rates.
Has this government not bothered to look at how other countries ration energy as they surely can't believe that this one capped tariff for all is fair or will curb the consumption of the rich who pay little of their energy bill as a percentage of their incomes? 🤦🏽♂️
This has to be the correct way to price elasticity, get rid of the standing charge and ramp up the price if you have big greedy requirements. It wouldn't be hard to cap bills for people who need power for life saving medical equipment.
@@onlyme8117 I'm British actually, but I don't get what you're trying to prove here, that the UK has a single unfair tariff and India doesn't because of the foreign aid sent there?
Because it turns out that the UK sends India a little over £300 million annually according to The Independent Commission for AID Impact, to a country with a nominal GDP of $3.47 trillion dollars whose public expenditure is $990 billion annually.
Our Energy Cap Scheme is going to cost £90 billion till April next year, how is fretting over the aid sent to India, £300 million (which isn't without strings btw) which a mere THIRD of ONE percent of the Price Cap budget.
Going by your comment, one would think Britain is carrying helpless India on its back with its massive generosity. 🤡
In any case the ENTIRE Foreign AID budget at £11 billion is barely half of the increase of the debt repayment rises that were caused in the aftermath of the Truss and Kwarteng mini-budget fiasco.
There may well be a good case for cutting foreign aid, but it's laughable to suggest it's a priority to target in light of the scale of the problems the UK faces, especially when considering doubling the UK foreign budget would have had much less of an impact on public finances than Truss's mini-budget did on the cost of public borrowing.
Back to the original topic, even if the UK were literally paying for India's electricity, space program, free stuff etc, it doesn't mean that we can't implement a better way to distribute and pay for electricity here, given that we are likely going to have blackouts soon due to a lack of proper energy rationing.
Of course not, for all the pretense of "compassionate conservatism" these are a bunch of ideologues who think the poor deserve to suffer for being poor and that the rich are unfairly treated and shouldn't be paying "proportional" taxes. Even if it is logical, they plain do not want to because they only protect their own...
@@giansideros one criticism is that there is not a single UK tariff, and that the least capable get the worst (prepay meters) deal of all. These meters should not be allowed - they are a legal poverty tax and do nothing to protect the customer, they exist to protect the profits of the suppliers.
A fair structure would be to assess the energy requirements of each individual dwelling and assign a basic heat, light, and drain by essential appliances, to set a kWh consumption per year for which a lower tariff would apply. Anything above that would be scaled up until absurd consumption is penalised by a very high tariff. It’s probably evident that high tariffs have reduced consumption for many to the point some are in energy poverty living without adequate heat, light, and cooking but for many more they’re obstinate and feckless with waste to depict how much they can spend. Call it virtue signalling one’s financial excess. Society can’t afford this behaviour especially when all it achieves is inflated profits for the energy sector, or is that the point when those users are overpaid too in sectors that also return far too much profit. Has avariciousness and narcissistic entitlement defined a sector of society to the point it can’t see its own excess is destroying everyone else.
Everyone talks about energy bills paying £200-£300 a Month but where is the rage on house prices, 2k a Month on something that was half 10 years ago
@D C have, have, have. Not of. Should have. As in "should have listened in school during basic English lessons".
If you're going to be mean to others then expect it back.
If you're reasonable to others then it will come back to you as well.
:-)
600% rise in house prices through deliberate under supply, over the past 30 years.
200% rise in wages in the same time which means a 400% deficit in affordability.
It's deliberate under supply which is forcing up prices.
The government could set laws in place in order to increase house building but if they do this then they won't get so many kickbacks, but the country will be more competitive.
Corrupt politicians are negatively affecting our economy and making Britain less competitive with the world.
@D C Living beyond means? Good one.
You would do better with crayons - and to think that stream of stupid was edited?
@D C you're not even a very good troll. 3/10 for lack of imagination in grammatical errors.
@D C doesn't that depend on how much "you make"?
Just over 30 years ago the interest was higher still. Not much help for those struggling now, and it resulted in many foreclosures at the time. It seems the incessant march of property price increases may not be beneficial (apart from to the few) ... and that the market has learnt nothing from relatively recent history.
I’m waiting for MPs to grant themselves a massive pay and allowance rise. I still do not understand why energy prices can only get more expensive, if not for this obsession with renewables, as the Chinese lady clearly stated that we must accept the pain to save the planet. These people are mad.
They are the first ones to get it every year. But it's ok for them just not us because we cause inflation to go up but obviously not theirs
@D C thank you for providing the most uneducated ignorant response possible, you are truly an asset to your family /s.
2:00 so 41 days is a long way off.... sure if you're rich and thinking of your next skiing holiday ..... meanwhile the rich get richer....and there's no "trickle down economics"... Nanny makes the marmalade...and well Bentley's are tanks.
Huntish policies inacted by a complete Hunt.
We’re doomed 😢
The most important thing that is missed is that none of this will be paid for until the new parliament/ government. So he hasn't balanced the books or solved ANYTHING! He has kicked the can down the road for Labour to have to sort out when they come in.
No mention of the millions sent to France and the Ukraine
Drop in the ocean compared to the national budget
@@kirishima638 So was the mini budget's idea on lowering the 45% to 40% only 2bn! So that was okay then? Stfu
@@gHGhej whataboutism/strawman. I was responding to the OP’s comment only.
So stfu
@@kirishima638 Oh goody, someone that copies smart sounding words to deflate that you do not understand their own argument.
The OP is commenting on that money is being sent to France and Ukraine (inferred in a negative light sure). You comment that due to it being a small amount of money, we should not care about where it is going. I use an example of a small amount of money causing harm and people caring, undermining your point. Because OP is right, we should challenge and be aware for where public money is going and that we as the public agrees with it.
Take Ukraine, I personally do not like us sending 'lethal' aid but could use hat money with rebuilding funds and supporting refugees. Get the straw out of your head friend 😊
As we spiral down into the vortex of poverty: enjoy
And don’t get me started on inheritance tax because people who have saved up to give to their families after they die have already paid tax on that money they’ve saved so why should it then be taxed more?! Where Tf is all this money going?!?!
BS. thats utter BS. the super rich pay no tax here at all. dont be a simp.
this money is going back to the rich.
Very true well done
It is going in the Tory parties mates pockets.
As for the point on inheritance tax, is it right people work hard, pay tax but never accumulate a enough wealth to buy a house? Therefore have limited assets. Meanwhile millionaire’s pay next nothing in tax, relative to their wage and then avoid most the inheritance tax through bought loopholes.
Not to mention the current generation passing on estate, have taken more out than they paid in on average
@@ozjob inheritance tax is a fine initiative, it aims to prevent familial hoarding of gross wealth across generations without re-investment.
However, its current setup targets estates worth a median amount and impacts normal families way too much. The super rich just put everything in "trust" to avoid it anyway.
It's just a broken tax, yet another symptom of a broken system.
@D C drains the NHS, so a healthy work force is a drain. As for benefits most people on them, work. So make companies pay a fair wage and not us subsidising their profits. Stop reading the right wing tabloids. They are full of 💩.
Nothing mentioned about the stealth tax we are paying for. It was sneaked into the budget. Giving struggling people on benefits a loan funded by public money to prop up the housing market. In a sence its a loan to pay for a mortgage loan. Carnt see nothing going wrong with that. Don’t worry tho we will just pay the extra tax to help them while struggling ourselves to pay our Loans without help. Makes you wonder what these people are doing. Are they there to reinforce the budget and to make us accept it.
So talking about “fairer taxes” no one is talking about taxing the rich and forcing companies to pay their taxes so we wouldn’t have as many issues … I mean gods forbid anyone except the workers actually pay anything!!!
I wonder how many of the witnesses themselves exploit tax avoidance instruments, have off-shore accounts and profit from rental property portfolios.
I’m mothballing my business and going travelling for a couple of years! Just not worth bothering to run a small Ltd business anymore! 🤬
Move your business to another country, everybody else is (or trying to)
@@gazza8524 I’m just done! I’m exhausted after going through chemo with no financial help, then Covid lockdowns with no financial help and now getting hammered by these tax rises.
I need a break from the whole thing, not a load more complications of re-locating my business to another country.
@0:19 Resolution Foundation??? WTF?! Who TF, and what is he to do with electorate choice?
FFS! "Timing over time"? This is all so depressing.😩😫😓
no one will phase jeremy hunt. unless you burn his personal pile of money
it seems some in government r claiming for thier energy raises on thier expensis which means we r also paying thiers Why?
I don't understand this videos title, none of them debunked anything, if anything they seemed relatively complimentary. Does this channel just write the most clickbaity title they can and then hope people don't notice the video?
Instead of pursuing net zero and the green agenda perhaps the last 12 years of tory government should have invested in British energy, In other words our own energy instead of relying on overseas energy , By that course of action we stopped building power stations and closed them, but didn't it make the UKs net zero look good, We are paying for the tories mistakes in so many areas they are absolutely useless. I would call them a shower of bounders !
We are told that over 50% of the UKs energy now comes from renewable sources yet our energy bills seem to be rising more than the rest of Europe but I don't remember sunshine or wind becoming more expensive. BTW, we are paying £1billion annually to energy companies for wind generators to be turned off because the national grid can't cope with the amount of electricity being generated. I don't think building more power stations is going to help.
Actually it was the Lib Dems during the coalition who vetoed new nuclear power stations as they wouldnt come online for 10 years
... if we had had a purely tory govt till 2015 those nuclear power stations they were planning might be online now ..
It is so hard to say that taxes should be increased on the high income households and high profit corporation
Yes .. the top 1% of earners already pay 25% of all income taxes .. 45p top rate of tax is pretty much accepted as optimal .. any more than that and the amount you raise actually goes down .. Multi national companies have armies of tax lawyers and it costs so much to go after them so they "agree" tax bills .. if the taxes in a given country is too much the multi national just packs up and leaves with the hit to employment and the economy
Why does government means test help for energy? Wouldn’t it be simpler to simply tax those on higher incomes more so in effect taking the cap benefits away from wealthy households?
2. Universal credit will prison people for life and you wonder why people are not taking it up.
I dont agree raising the bottom rate threshold gives everyone the kings tenner by example, for some a tenner a week is life and death for others its a couple of designer coffees in a coffee house
No it doesn't. Over a certain amount of earnings and the wealthy lose their personal allowances. So raising personal allowances would take the poorest out of the tax system without benefiting the wealthy. Just looked it up and the income limit is £100,000.
@@stephengraham1153 Simple math, if you are a 16k a year shop worker you would pay circa 686 per year tax. If the basic allowance was raised to 16k you wouldn't pay tax
@@paulwebster4499 The key word in your original comment was "everyone". If you earn over £100,000 then an increase in personal allowances makes no difference. Fact.
@@stephengraham1153 sorry . my point is someone on 16 k 17k a year would be thankful of a higher starting tax threshold they would need it. Someone on 50 60 k a year, the tax that they wouldn't pay (the same amount) they would be able to spend it on things that they want
Need and want, two different things
@@stephengraham1153 My point is
a 17500 worker or pensioner after his current tax allowance of 12570 would pay 20% of 4930 = 986 per anumn. if the tax allowance was increased to 16000 he/she would pay 300 per anumn a saving of 686 per year.
A 50000 worker after his /her tax allowance would pay 7486 tax. if the tax allowance was increased to 16000 he/she would pay 6800 per anumn a saving of 686 per year.
Or 13.19 less tax eah per year. For the lower paid shop worker or pensioner an extra 13.19 per week would or could, be the difference between life and death.
For the 50000 a year guy the 13.19 per week would or should maybe buy them a few extra things that they wanted
I hope that's clear
It will get watered down without telling us
For years Gen X and Millennials have been told they don't save enough. So, yeah, now they've had a decent chance to save they're going to hold on to those savings.
What savings? One in 5 of us has no savings whatsoever .. its recommended to have 3 to 6 months salary in the bank how many people have that? If we all had that there would be no need for bailouts and food banks
Ok they are having a committee but what does it change for people
It’s just an argument where the findings can be loosely referred to in a debate.. which no one will watch or remember
Of course it was a fair budget,the burden placed firmly on the poorest as always with the Tories.A good question would have been where do the Government think the ordinary people are going to raise the extra money,from a fixed income, as costs rise every week.
Its MADNESS that during this crisis government intend to go ahead with NON URGENT projects like the HS2, all non essential projects should be halted until we see some light at the end of this never ending tunnel of darkness we were thrust into in 2010 with austerity, also all (non essential) expense claims for (MP's/MLA's) should be suspended.
(Lady) Pff.., Silvia Hermon claimed £2 for 2 bunches of daffodils for her constituency office in 2015, she blamed the claim on a secretary yet WHO provided the secretary with the receipt???, we need a top down change of government ASAP.
Carl’s barber could/should have done more.
Living standards have dropped like a stone while inflation is rising and so has interest rates, taxes while services are going to be cut . There will be very few who are not negatively impacted. Why did we bail out Bulb energy a private company with over 4 billion. Usual heads you win tails we lose.
i do not know why these expensive meetings take place the politicians do not, ever, answer the questions or they lie.
Research shows that 8 out of 10 humans prefer food and warmth.
Now, that was fascinating, damned by faint praise.
Hold on, why the Daily Express style headline here? I listened to the very well articulated and logical answers to the Select Committee
questions, there was not the slightest element of ‘debunking’. Yet the Autumn statement contained many gaps and areas where clarity
was required. Suggest you change the headline.
Financially crippling the very people you need to fulfill the day to day tasks of keeping the UK solvent seems a rather strange strategy to me but at least the bankers bonuses are locked at only 200% bless em !!!!
That's the thanks you get for keeping the country going during the pandemic.
These economists are very understated in comparison to the video's title
I'm wondering what a person who reads body language would make of this video Joe? The twitching, the fidgeting & looking down tells me they aren't able to answer or willing to answer truthfully. How does the Government employ so many dodgy personnel who sympathise more with the chancellor than they do the public who are paying for the @Conservatives rainbow unicorns. #NHSPay15 #GTTO #UnisonVoteYes #RCNsolidarity
Yes, great comment by you.
First guy to speak was clearly a Tory trying to save his job eh.
Guys fyi the first guy is from the resolution foundation, it's a foundation that aims to increase the living standards of working and middle class families. These are not conservatives in fact many are left leaning economists just answering straight questions. There's not alot they could haver changed in the budget, because that's how f*'d we are as a country. WHY we are where we are is a different story.
Body language is only 40% of communication!!
Hunt, another toffee nosed tory, on the gravy train.
He's a open borders Globalist.
How long has Eugene Levy been an economist?
Quality
Absolutely no growth what so ever in his budget
First guy. Embarrassing. Simple question - waffle…
She may as well just be asking Magic 8 Ball questions.
Debunking? Their words seemed anything but. Mostly it was expressions of pleasant surprise, giving justifications for the terrible parts and huge leniency for Hunt due to his brief tenure.
The budget is terrible and the harm it inflicts is a political choice. But this clip was absolutely anything but a debunking.
No word about the non effective windfall tax, tax breaks for oil companies, non dom status, ppe contracts refund or other measures... FAIL
Click-bait warning: get the story straight as economists broadly agree within time constraints.
So we’re involuntarily taking part in another Tory gamble with the economy with more hardship to come in the spring. We need a new government now.
Then start by chasing the WEF puppets and CCP loyalists out of the country with a stick!
Why not shut down the Russian war for lots of cheap energy!
Economics is not an exact science that can be replicated in a laboratory, it is guessing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The public finances are the most important aspect of any economy.
A pretty damning report: D - “could do better.”
Even I can debunk hunt's budget and I'm not an Economist. 😡😡😡
Go ahead .. debunk it ...
Good to know that at least the bankster bonusses can skyrocket without a limit !! Congrats !!
the normal people getting poorer but richy rich is getting more wealthy ... so all going as per STory party plan !! congrats also to this !
So bascially they are praising him for doing it quickly and rushing it.
good to see the economists talking sense, just a shame government don't take them up on their thoughts and suggestions!
It's called " BREXIT "
Of course MPs don't care! We pay their heating bills & expenses! As well as their salaries! They're sitting in hot houses, eating what they want with subsided meals in the HofC, while the rest of us plan, cut & struggle! Disgusting!
Where are the economists?
Where is the "debunking"
This is not the first MISLEADING title and it is becoming a bit of a pattern.
If I want to see politics Joe videos in future I will search for them.
Unsubscribed.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Sure you can, if you're a Tory
Tories will eat other people's cakes and sell their Tory cakes by privatisation for profit.
Feels weird liking this video when it's bad
Higher Incomes hoard all the money, who knew? Trickle down my arse.
Anyone who thinks that people with savings would suddenly start spending it with the economy the way it is, and with the future looking so bleak and uncertain, is absolutely certifiably insane.
Totally agree.
This as been going on 12 years you are responsible for what's happening
Energy price guarantee and money towards bills should have gone to poor people, not everyone. The givernment must also ramp up their spending on renewable energy. It's the only sensible thing to do.
There is a mathematical and fiscally economical way to increase NIC and Basic Rate income Tax to £30,000 making the average worker £650 better off and benefiting all earning up to £200,000.
There is no money left after Rishi Sunak proudly gave it away as chancellor. Interest payments on our collective debt cost all of us collectively approx.£2,000,000,000 per week. So no, there won't be any more help for the less fortunate and yes, there will be more nurses queing at the food banks not less. Yet it is stated here that some people are using their money to pay off their mortgages instead of spending it and helping the economy.
Theses video should be shown in school all across Britain
Debunking Jeremy Hunt's Budget i.e. what he should have done:-
1) Increase the top rate of Tax to 50% for individuals earning over and above £150,000.
2) Increase the Personal Tax Threshold to at least 15K, followed by 17.5K and then 20K by 2025.
3) Equalise Capital Gains/Income Tax/Dividend Tax at the same rate.
4) Replace Business Rates with LVT.
5) Increase the Windfall Tax to 50% and backdate it to the start of the pandemic.
6) Free up to 1.2 million SME's from paying Corporation Tax (over 80% of companies) by lifting the minimum threshold to £100,000. Subsequently raise the rate from 19% to 20%.
7) Carbon tax at £250 per metric tonne
8) 10% buyers tax on foreign home ownership and companies that own UK residential/commercial property
9) Increase the Digital Services Tax from the current rate of 2% to 5% to ensure tech giants pay their fair share.
10) Merge income tax and both employee and employer National Insurance contributions into a single system rate to boost transparency.
He means narrowing the groups of people eligible for assistance in regard to power Interesting no one mention corporate or personal tax avoidance
"Economists concede the challenges facing any government trying to address the UK's situation and give credit where efforts were made to protect people."
There, fixed that grossly inaccurate summary for you.
Jesus Christ, Joe Politics really has become a tabloid level rag recently.
No MPs were harmed by this budget…thank God!
Also..what about us single parents who are earning too much to claim anything. I have a shared ownership property. I need to refix my mortgage next year amd my rent portion will be massively increased. Fuel, food etc etc. I won't be able to afford to live next year. Rentals in my area are just as expensive. What will happen to people like me at risk of losing our homes... well educated in a good job and still struggling to make ends meet...this is a disgrace..thanks tory government!! Accumulate savings...pleasant thought but everything had to go into a deposit for a house to have some security for raising my child which I could lose
J CnNT will get away with it by pivoting and evading the question! I finally know how policy is made in your favour!
Why doesn't the Chancellor collaborate & refer to these specialists? Hunt destroyed the NHS! I have zero confidence in him! He doesn't have a clue!
The biggest thing is not raising the tax threshold until 2028 this is criminal
2:50 I can fix that hair too. Wth is that a reverse mohawk?
In August 2015, the department admitted using fictional stories from made-up claimants on leaflets advertising the positive impact of benefit sanctions, following a Freedom of Information request from Welfare Weekly, claiming that they were for "illustrative purposes only" and that it was "quite wrong" to pass these off as genuine quotes.
It’s worse, but it could be worse!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Is it a key good that we import? How much do we import from this key good? Because I heard a lot of people saying that we're practically independent of Russian gas. Are we dependent on Russian gas, or YOU ARE JUST CROOKS?
Governments mismanagement or indeed management of money is the reason why these situations happen. The transfer of money is evident in ALL governments. When you sit on the top of the mountain, you don't cut off your air supply ...
More obfuscation and reinforcement of previous outright lies.
We need wholesale systemic change.
The economy is in a mssive hole and the budget dealt with that. A massive hole the tories played a part in creating but that is another point altogether. Tax reciepts are down badly cause trade is massivly down, so businesses are making way less money and are paying way less taxes. Less taxes means higher tax rates....