FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Windfall tax
Windfall tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
"
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges "
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
"
The theory that Truss was right , keep up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up "
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right..."
Both were wrong, what is your point |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point "
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
"
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM "
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that. "
What was the point of the OP then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The argument of imposing windfall taxes to bring down prices is a lie.
Think about it.You're running a profitable business. The government then decides that you're not paying enough tax and so increases the amount you are required to pay.
How do you respond?
You increase your prices to compensate and if the tax burden gets too high, you cease to invest and move your company abroad |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then? "
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then?
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations"
I don’t recall Sunak having any sort of vision. Let alone one that was championed.
But that doesn’t mean Truss wasn’t a disaster |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then?
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations"
Ah, so you’re highlighting that both are useless? Btw, why did Truss sack Kwasi and replace him with Hunt? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Truss sadly panicked.
Shes certainly no Maggie.
But sunak hunt budget 100% wrong.
Truss we will never know
"
Using that logics, we will also never know if Corbyn would have been the best PM in history |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Truss sadly panicked.
Shes certainly no Maggie.
But sunak hunt budget 100% wrong.
Truss we will never know
Using that logics, we will also never know if Corbyn would have been the best PM in history "
Correct we will never know.
Glad we got to the bottom of it then.
And you agree we will lnever knkw about truss but can speculate whereas we DO KNOW hunt and sunak ended up where they claimed truss would |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Truss sadly panicked.
Shes certainly no Maggie.
But sunak hunt budget 100% wrong.
Truss we will never know
Using that logics, we will also never know if Corbyn would have been the best PM in history
Correct we will never know.
Glad we got to the bottom of it then.
And you agree we will lnever knkw about truss but can speculate whereas we DO KNOW hunt and sunak ended up where they claimed truss would "
What we do know
Truss announce a budget
Markets crashed
Truss sacked Kwasi and replaced him with hunt
Truss was forced to resign |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
"
It’s just incompetence - from 2010 until 2023. Criminal incompetence.
The fact is that investors and the markets have no faith in this Government. All the questions remain, but the Government have never had any long-term answers.
The economy is crumbling and investors are fleeing. All the while incompetent charlatans hang on to their jobs terrified of what might happen if they were honest enough to accept that they really do need to call an election.
For the sake of the country, they need to accept that their time is up and that they are out of ideas.
But they won’t
Cunts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then?
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations"
Are you on first name terms with Liz Truss? You refer to “Sunak” and “Liz”!
I suppose she is the UK politician who has given more speeches at events hosted by Tufton St associated organisations than any other UK politician...ever! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then?
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations
Are you on first name terms with Liz Truss? You refer to “Sunak” and “Liz”!
I suppose she is the UK politician who has given more speeches at events hosted by Tufton St associated organisations than any other UK politician...ever! "
What about Larry the cat? I bet he's snuck in there to piss all over the place and miaow a bunch of times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
I have read this theory a few times on Twitter, all from Tufton street stooges
Thisn is the treasury forecast update.
Didn't realise treasury were now Tufton street stooges
The theory that Truss was right , keep up
Oh ok. So the critics of the Truss budget and everything they said would happen under her budget have now seen it happen under theirs.
But yeah...they were right...
Both were wrong, what is your point
You can not say liz was wrong. Unless you live in an alternate reality where liz is still pm.
You can’t say liz was right unless you live in an alternate reality where she is still the PM
Not saying liz was right. I beleive she was but I wasn't expressing that.
What was the point of the OP then?
That those who championed sunaks vision ended up having a worse time than liz budget they claimed wa sa disaster and tha even the treasury has changed its tax receipts expectations
Are you on first name terms with Liz Truss? You refer to “Sunak” and “Liz”!
I suppose she is the UK politician who has given more speeches at events hosted by Tufton St associated organisations than any other UK politician...ever!
What about Larry the cat? I bet he's snuck in there to piss all over the place and miaow a bunch of times."
Larry has better taste and a “totally don’t give a fuck” attitude. Nobody messes with Larry! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I bet Larry was nervous when Johnson was around though. After hearing how Johnson was always after pussy.
Larry was shitting himself when he heard Trump might visit!"
Oh nooooooooooooooooo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
"
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I just popped in to joke about Larry the cat.
Larry heard windfall and thought a dead bird had dropped from the sky giving him a little snack! How’s that? "
Perfect! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
"
Truss was the person who appointed Hunt as chancellor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Truss was the person who appointed Hunt as chancellor "
You mean “Liz” the Tufton St Groupie?
AKA Thick Lizzie (not remotely as good as the Irish rock band who were skinnier) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!"
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Truss was the person who appointed Hunt as chancellor
You mean “Liz” the Tufton St Groupie?
AKA Thick Lizzie (not remotely as good as the Irish rock band who were skinnier)"
Yep, Truss and Johnson to me and you, Liz and Boris to the Tufton street stooges |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
"
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?"
Well, she appointed Hunt as chancellor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Truss was the person who appointed Hunt as chancellor
You mean “Liz” the Tufton St Groupie?
AKA Thick Lizzie (not remotely as good as the Irish rock band who were skinnier)
Yep, Truss and Johnson to me and you, Liz and Boris to the Tufton street stooges "
They just want to be popular and would go for a ride with anyone! At least good old Boris got invited to parties! Nobody told Liz! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?"
Bet you she'd have made an epic speech where she seemed like a malfunctioning robot pretending to be human. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
Bet you she'd have made an epic speech where she seemed like a malfunctioning robot pretending to be human."
Her puppet strings stretched all the way to 55 Tufton St |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?"
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
"
Bet she had plans to do with pork markets though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
"
So what would the net result of that have been? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
Bet she had plans to do with pork markets though."
You’re on fire today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
So what would the net result of that have been?"
We will never know.
What we have seen though is that increasing tax doesn't result in the receipts automatically increasing in line with the tax change though.
In fact.
Not even close. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
So what would the net result of that have been?
We will never know.
What we have seen though is that increasing tax doesn't result in the receipts automatically increasing in line with the tax change though.
In fact.
Not even close."
So even though the windfall didn’t bring in c.£40bn it did still bring in c.£26bn (sorry need to scroll up to check exact numbers but can’t while posting). So how would Truss’ approach have brought in c.£26bn? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
So what would the net result of that have been?
We will never know.
What we have seen though is that increasing tax doesn't result in the receipts automatically increasing in line with the tax change though.
In fact.
Not even close.
So even though the windfall didn’t bring in c.£40bn it did still bring in c.£26bn (sorry need to scroll up to check exact numbers but can’t while posting). So how would Truss’ approach have brought in c.£26bn?"
Nope.
Read again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
"
She appointed Hunt as her chancellor |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
She appointed Hunt as her chancellor "
Pffft but you can't trust Truss. She also sacked Kwarteng for agreeing with her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
She appointed Hunt as her chancellor
Pffft but you can't trust Truss. She also sacked Kwarteng for agreeing with her."
Truss was very unpopular at Oxford. Few friends. One of those awkward dweebs that nobody really spoke to or ever wanted to invite to any social type event. Just wanted to be liked so easy to manipulate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So then .
No one wants to to address the elephant in the room .
That even thought we've seen in this forum people vleat on about taxing the corporations and windfall taxes generating x in tax revenues.
The treasury has already had tk re forecast a 40% hit after a disastrous tax policy.
It's ok. I'm used to people in this forum avoiding reality now.
Didn’t Hunt quietly change the rules around the windfall and provide back door get out clauses? Would explain lower take!
No
They extended the current scheme at a calculation of 40bn and increased the windfall from 25% to 35%.
But companies get allowances for investing in uk infrastructure. However thay investment hadms been pulled when the extension of the windfall was announced to last until 2028.
They've ballsed this up.
As many free marketeers state and this helps prove.
When you hit companies hard with tax, they stop investing and they reduce profits.
Ah ok
So what would Liz have done?
She had no plans to increase that threshold or extend it.
So what would the net result of that have been?
We will never know.
What we have seen though is that increasing tax doesn't result in the receipts automatically increasing in line with the tax change though.
In fact.
Not even close.
So even though the windfall didn’t bring in c.£40bn it did still bring in c.£26bn (sorry need to scroll up to check exact numbers but can’t while posting). So how would Truss’ approach have brought in c.£26bn?
Nope.
Read again."
You’ve lost me. No need to be cryptic this isn’t the Crystal Maze...
You said
"Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference."
So while less than expected is that not still a net gain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"The argument of imposing windfall taxes to bring down prices is a lie.
Think about it.You're running a profitable business. The government then decides that you're not paying enough tax and so increases the amount you are required to pay.
How do you respond?
You increase your prices to compensate and if the tax burden gets too high, you cease to invest and move your company abroad"
Exactly what happened in France,also with their "wealth/assets" tax.Companies planned to withdraw from France.Wealthy people planned to leave,they can go elsewhere because they can afford to because they are....errr...wealthy.Taking their money with them that they are not spending in France,or investing in businesses or startups,which create jobs which creates tax revenue,not just IT but VAT on stuff employed people can afford to buy.Who pays for the poor?It sure as hell isn't the poor. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"As people were told.
Raising tax doesn't automatically lead to greater receipts.
Jeremy hunts windfall tax on gas and oil companies that helped oust liz was estimated to return 41.6bn to the treasury.
It's now estimated the uk will receive 26bn. A 40% difference.
Remember we were told gilts only went as high as they did because of the Truss budget...they're higher bow than when the " disaster budget" was announced.
We were told minford was an idiot and that Truss policies would lead to a 5% base rate...we now have a 5% base rate.
But apparently sunaks and hunts budgets were the ones to protect the uk. Long may they flounder.
"
The oil and gas industry could write off the windfall tax against new investments in oil and gas, so guess what they have done...
What has this got to do with Truss' budget?
Gilt yields rose due to her budget because the market did not want to lend against unfunded tax cuts in the hope that this would magically create growth to provide additional taxes. The BoE had to purchase its own debt to artificially create demand to maintain the value.
A more sensible budget allowed this debt to be sold back.
Inflation has since risen dramatically and is starting to look embedded for longer than expected. This requires a higher yield to make the debt attractive. The Government does not have direct control over the biggest driver of inflation which has been fossil fuel prices. Over a decade of below inflation pay rises has led to a sudden demand due to the high rise in the cost of living.
Truss' increase in the yield was sudden due to market panic. The current rise has happened over several months due to gradually worsening expectations.
Minford and Gudgen and Truss were idiots according to the market.
The market decides, not you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
