Liz Truss quits after six chaotic weeks as UK prime minister

Johnson was most definitely not the "face of the 2016 Brexit campaign". Like most Conservatives he stayed in hiding so that he could not be tarnished by the outcome. The true face of the campaign was Nigel Farage who almost singlehandedly led the UK out of the EU.

Good For UK, Good for Europe, Good for the world.

Bring Mr.  Boris Johnson Back, at least he can speak last a lot longer.

What a disaster she was.

"She's not been voted in and certainly, the policy decisions she made, none of the British people asked for any of those," 50-year-old Kelly Rodgers told Reuters outside Downing Street. "So (it's) right and proper she should go."

That's the thing. She didn't have the mandate of the people. I saw a comment on a previous article that she campaigned for PM on cutting taxes, so why are we surprised when she cut taxes. Sure. But the public doesn't elect the PM and nobody sensible thinks that cutting taxes at this time is a good thing to do.

Well, from the beginning I told you that this was a disaster foretold, but I didn't think it would be so chaotic and with such a short duration..

Another blow to the conservatives of the world..

Please don't go back to Boris, don't finish sinking..

Stop being the lapdogs of the US-NATO circus, be independent and have good relations with everyone, especially with Russia and China if you want to survive..

And please get out of your pathetic Brexit..

underscores just how volatile British politics has become since the 2016 vote to leave the European Union.

"volatile" isn't the half of it.... inept, egotistical, self-serving, inept, arrogant, corrupt.... and the sooner the UK and other places get rid of the ludicrous notion that politicians are there to 'serve' the people (who they appear to disdain), the better. but of course, that will never happen. oh... and did I mention 'inept'? and have you noticed how politicians can be in power, out of power, in office, out of office, resign.... yet seem never to be poor? or short of a comfy directorship or two, a nice speaking gig or nine for huge munnee..... what a system!

ABB

Anyone But Borris

Torie's leaders and ministers say one thing and do another.

The British people deserve better.

No matter how awful the Tories are, Labour will still be even worse.

She finally did something right.

Anyone want a turn at being prime minister? Larry the Cat is looking like a good choice.

Algernon LaCroix

No matter how awful the Tories are, Labour will still be even worse.

Labour would be significantly better than the tories.

Dashboard of decline: seven charts that explain Britain’s economic crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/02/dashboard-of-decline-seven-charts-that-explain-britains-economic-crisis

Congratulations to the lettuce that outlasted Liz Truss....

Labour would be significantly better than the tories

Nah, both the Tories and Labour are riddled with globalist shills, but labour has destructive big-government international socialists thrown in for good measure as well.

Britain is in for a hell of a ride until a small-government, centre-right party can emerge and either take over from the Tories or force them into line.

Liz Truss' entry in (UK) history will prove to be difficult to beat. Still, with such talented people such as uber-weirdo Jacob Rees-Mogg or the ghastly Mark Francois, are there still possibilities to launch and crash a tory government within days or even hours. - blue

If Boris comes back which there is some speculation he will then I reckon he could give Truss a good run for her money. What a farce the conservatives have created.

She clearly did not have the mental capacity to perform the role, and this 'resignation' right after saying she won't quit is just embarrassing, for her, and for the British government at large.

The UK economy is in tatters.

Food and energy costs are through the roof.

Sanctions are finally beginning to bite.

(except they're biting the wrong countries

Yup!

Stop being the lapdogs of the US-NATO circus, be independent and have good relations with everyone, especially with Russia and China if you want to survive..

You do realize that Other than a brief break in relations during the War of 1812, the United States and the United Kingdom have remained durable partners and Allies. 

i’m pretty sure the British would never allow a communist (China) or a fascist regime (Russia) to take away their rights.

just saying

Yet another leadership election for the Tories but no general election for the country to vote in? I know the rules but this is just making a mockery of "democracy". Hard to see how the Tories can claim to support "democracy" around the world when they're refusing to allow the electorate a chance to vote in their own country....

Boris johnson is still under investigation.

Burning Bush:

Can't deliver the economic miracle, she should have followed the Chinese model of a police state in the guise of zero covid.

I'm surprised you didn't blame China for her resignation, stupidity, tone-deafness and arrogance. If China were to follow the American model, it would have seen well over 4 million deaths. As such, it didn't, most of the people are satisfied with the political system, no hardships there (as well as in Russia) in contrast to the mayhem and unrest we're seeing in UK and the rest of Europe. Don't worry, BB, your country's not exactly doing that well either. No, it won't be Chinese butts that will be freezing this winter.

As I posted yesterday...

I'm all for a professional government. Let's hire the best financial minds to run our countries. People from the top universities and companies who know economics and how to balance books. Pay them a trunk load of money with bonuses to keep them put. Accountable to an independent committee. All of them sign waivers that allow auditing of their bank accounts at any time we choose.

Tired of these self-serving narcissists who together with their cronies fleece the taxpayer and when they retire have bank balances well in excess of their incomes.

I'm even more convinced of this now. There is absolutely nobody on either side I'd vote for. That is a truly ridiculous state to be in.

So now Liz has over 100,000 a year for life as an ex-serving PM.

All for a few weeks' work. She rode us like donkeys.

Thatcher kept the Eurosceptics in a cage and squeezed the best deal of any nation out of the EU. Take away about 100 political IQ points and you get the Brexiteers, currently discovering economic gravity the hard way, and refusing to accept it.

Amusingly, the Tory party members will keep voting for the least competent, least electable and most right wing candidates. Despite their vote for Truss ending in the most catastrophic farce, they will do the same again if given the chance.

The Tories have two years, so they might feasibly skin it and survive intact with Sunak, if they can shift the crazies back to the fringes of the party and just not break anything else. There are easy deals to be done to end strikes that would calm things down, and interventions to reduce inflation. Support for power bills could be shifted to those least able to pay, and as sterling rose, inflation and mortgage rates would stabilise and dip. That is probably their last and only chance to avoid being wiped out at the next election.

Labour (and the opposition parties) could get their heads together, declare that the Tories are an international joke with no realistic mandate any more, and pull out of parliament - votes, PMQ, sessions, committees. Labour could announce that when they do get in, they will erase everything that the Tories pass from now on, from the statute book on Day 1, including trade agreements and international treaties. The whole lot - including EU deals on Northern Ireland and tax changes. That would undermine the Tories even more - not that there is much credibility left to remove.

Labour, despite their huge ratings, would not have an easy time of it. There is no cash to pay for their traditional policies, the markets will slaughter sterling if they try to emulate Truss and spend money they can't fund, they have papered over the cracks of the Left/centre split in the party, but it will soon open up again. And most supporting Labour in opinion polls are actually casting a vote against the Tories, not for Labour policies. Labour's honeymoon period would be short, and they may soon be in a similar position to the Tories.

So now we wait to see if the Tories will just go on repeating their idiocy, the tail (members) wagging the dog (MPs) on policy. There is a strong desire amongst MPs to lock the activists out of the vote, as Starmer tried to muzzle Momentum. If they leave it to their members, the discredited clown himself may return. I can't see them surviving that.

Still, cheer up everyone. Only two more Tory PMs until Christmas.

Who ever that replaces Truss will have to find a way to solve Ukraine. Or tomput it another way, will have to defy Biden, Sullivan and Blinken, because 9 months on, Ukraine is no closer to freedom from tyranny, and the world is further from economic stabikity than ever.

Or that person can be a door mat for the revolving door to the PM's office.

Brexit and the inherent magical thinking of a sovereign UK that can go its own way in the globalised 21st-century world, detached from international developments, marked the beginning of the end of rational thinking on the island.

Time to eat some humble pie Britain

Former prime ministers are able to claim up to almost $130000 a year in expenses under what is known as a “Public Duty Cost Allowance.”

It isn’t quite free money. The expenses are audited so that they cannot be used for private or parliamentary purposes (some former prime ministers stay in parliament after being kicked out of the top job, including both immediate Truss predecessors Theresa May and Boris Johnson).

Pension is half salary.

Last summer I followed closely when Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were competing to be the United Kingdom's prime minister. When she succeeded ro become Britain's prime minister I felt an evil omen had descended on British politics. I judge a country's leader by looks and personality. I was right about Winston Churchill, Barack Obama, Hitler, Margaret Thatcher and others. I was again right about the looks and pesonality of Liz Truss. She proved herself to be the politician least to be trusted. Rishi Sunak's handsome face has sensitive eyes book-ended by numerous smile lines. He went to the best schools and universities in the U.K. and the U.S. He has the advantages of a rich British Indian culture and at 42 had proved his statesmanship as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain. I hope now he will at last beccome Britain's Prime Minister.

Sorry long comment today but broken in to bite sized

It become clear that Liz Truss was a political square peg in a round hole, all along.

The parliamentary conservative party, aided and abetted by a more than willing elitist globalist establishment were aghast when Truss was chosen over their candidate ex-finance minister Rishi Sunak.

How dare the conservative party membership be left to democratically chose Liz Truss.

Truss was meant to be nothing more than the chosen loser.   

One of the most contentious issues facing the Conservatives is how they elect a new leader, after the party's 170,000 members chose Truss over the wishes of its elected lawmakers at Westminster. Groups within the party have battled over the direction of the country since the Brexit vote.

Here and now the Parliamentary party MP’s have taken it upon themselves to hobble/skew the vote in favour of Sunak.

 In previous contests the candidates were whittled down to two through a number of lawmaker votes over weeks, before the membership selected the winner. Many Conservative lawmakers say that cannot be allowed to happen again.

"Members can't have a say, we have to sort this out," one lawmaker said. Asked if the party could rebuild its reputation from this point, he added: "Never in a million years."

The shameless arrogance. Truss is a hapless fool, however a democratically elected hapless fool.

Johnson won the people’s vote, delivering the conservatives an 80-seat majority,

Yet the cowardly, ex-finance minister Rishi Sunak. Ultimately drew the knife that stabbed Johnson in the back.

The same Rishi Sunak that borrowed an unfunded 70 billion to splash on a covid furlough/job retention scheme without any creative Planning for managed financial implementation.

There is allot of talk and debate with regard to UK departure from the EU Brexit, the political convulsions the country is going through is a direct result of the refusal of a grey political establishment elite to accept the result.

To Quote Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Mail    

“When the reptilian Peter Mandelson gloated in the wake of Labour’s 1997 landslide that ‘the era of pure representative democracy is coming slowly to an end’, even he couldn’t have foreseen how prescient his remarks would eventually prove.

"Mandelson thought the future would be determined not at the ballot box but by unelected technocrats and a quangocracy epitomised by the anti-democratic European Union”

"Yet when the members made the ‘wrong’ choice, they immediately threw their toys out of the pram. Even before the Queen’s funeral, which overwhelmed Truss’s ‘honeymoon period’, they were actively plotting to get rid of her"

"And here’s where we come to the greatest threat to British democracy, the cynical rejection of the idea of ‘Loser’s Consent’ which underpins the whole system"

"Nobody accepts the result of a free-and-fair election any more. The majority of the political class — including, shamefully, a sizeable number of Tory MPs — from that gurning gargoyle Bercow, the ex-Commons speaker, to former PM Mother Theresa, moved heaven and earth to overturn or undermine the Brexit referendum result"

"The Tory MPs were quite happy to let Boris lead them to victory, but as soon as they settled in they started plotting to dump him"

Rishi Sunak's handsome face

...and grubby hands of a banker. No thanks.

The UK needs to change. The king is the king. Charles should be the head of state and the PM. King Charles for PM!!!

I'm more concerned with any defects in the selection process for Tory top leader. The last one was spent for nearly 2 months with several candidates involved, getting through a round of debates, rallies and background checks. Key issues and problems were supposed to be addressed. Inquiries were sufficient and the entire procedure seemed to me prudent and deliberate. Something may be wrong if the mandate for the winner with big backing is still short-lived.

Wallace...

Torie's leaders and ministers say one thing and do another.

They always have... The tax cut they talk of are not cuts for the ordinary people, yet the fools run out and vote for them.

The British people deserve better.

The British people voted these clowns in with a huge majority. The British people deserve all this brings them.

This crisis of leadership is systemic and it's not limited to the UK. Competent people with any self respect have no incentive to enter the circus ring of modern politics. It's narcissistic clowns all the way down, in all parties.

The UK is not a country. It is joke. And a bad one at that.

Well, they do still have a commonwealth that gives them total control over the democratically elected governments of many countries including Canada, Australia, NZ to name a few.

British government prevented the Turkish attempts to stop end the Ukraine War, so thousands have died. UK is not a joke. Just look at their colonial past.

She and Boris are only the first.

As winter hits, as protest mount in other parts or Europe as we are seeing in France, Germany, Czech, etc..more leaders and governments will fall.

Fuel cost/shortages, food prices/shortages, etc..will bring down quite a few governments and leaders.

Johnson, a disgraced pathological liar under investigation who was thrown out by his own party just a few months ago, is seen by many Tories as their best option going forward.

You couldn’t make this crap up.

Penny Mordaunt, a popular former defence minister,

Mordaunt was defence minister for the last 85 days of Theresa May and then sacked by Boris Johnson. She is a former minister like Zahawi and Kwarteng are former Chancellors. In addition to not getting top government jobs in the past three years, Mordaunt is so "popular" she finished third behind Sunak and Truss three months ago.

It seems like whoever wins will have to accept Hunt as Chancellor, i.e., the new leader is not going to lead. The whole thing is a complete shambles. The country needs a general election.

To Quote Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Mail 

Words I was hoping never to have to see again living in Japan.

Well, they do still have a commonwealth that gives them total control over the democratically elected governments of many countries including Canada, Australia, NZ to name a few.

The UK has "total control" over Australia, Canada and NZ?

I'm sure that comes as a shock to the citizens there. Australia has been independent for 121 years and I'd imagine Canada longer.

The Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation nations voluntarily join. It has no "control" over them.

Brits have proven themselves to be gluttons for punishment as well as meeting the definition of stupidity (blithely voting Tory over and over and expecting a different outcome). This time they may even excel themselves by bringing back the shambolic party animal, the self-styled cosplaying faux "Cincinnatus" to take them with him over the cliff of Brexit. If in fact the unthinkable really happens with the return of the unmentionable, "be careful what you wish for" will again prove to be the adage of our times

The UK has "total control" over Australia, Canada and NZ?

Don't be silly. Of course UK doesn't have any control over them, even though they share the same monarch. It's USA who controls these countries, including the UK itself.

GBR48

The European Union/commission is not a Union of equals.

UK great socialists Tony Benn, Peter Shore, Barbara Castle warned of the nature of this Union to the democratic right of its citizens to hold it politicians accountable.

UK is still lock step with EU regulatory system.

Below is open admittance, that laws and directives are enacted in secret, and it is procedurally impossible for any individual to challenge or have a right to contact the commissioner in question

On the point of lobbying, again all carried out in secret.

The Ombudsman office proposed eight changes for transparency, not one has been acted upon, all ignored.

European Ombudsman strategic inquiry on the transparency of trilogues: follow-up and first results

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/88698

The question of federalization is now being fully realised.

Olaf Scholz’s message to Europe: Germany First*

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-message-europe-germany-first/

You want to rejoin? I respect that, perhaps it time to respect the Federenden result of 17 million that don't!!!!

The Single Market needs root and branch reforms to balance Euro single currency disparity which gives Germany a overwhelming economic advantages.

It is without doubt UK political establishment want to drag UK back into without any need for a democratic mandate.

Nigel Farage won't waste a moment taking his agenda to the people.

Britain is in for a hell of a ride until a small-government, centre-right party can emerge and either take over from the Tories or force them into line.

That’s exactly what Truss offered and it was a catastrophe.

Boris Johnson, is a known charlatan, a shameless political Pinocchio, he would not recognise the truth if it jumped out the toilet and bit him on the backside.

His falsehoods and falsifications are on record and stretch back decades.

Yet in 2019 the electorate delivered his party an 80 seat majority?

Conservative Party rules state a person who has resigned the Party leadership are ineligible to stand for the position again. Rules out Johnson, despite the push of the media. Also, it is extremely unlikely he would get the required support of at least 100 MPs to stand. So two bars to a comeback.

It makes you think, how these people were ever elected to be MP. Sunak, Truss, Boris….is there no one worthy of the position….

There may be a way, that many will disagree, UK could adopt a form of proportional representation.

I like change, I believe nothing should be carved in stone.

A deeply stupid and unqualified woman given the boot for attempting to foist a stupid and discredited policy upon a market that said “um, unlike the British electorate, we get a vote. We vote ‘Hell No’!”

The idea of cutting taxes during an inflationary environment is a policy befitting a political party dumb enough to promote Brexit.

When Borris looks like a qualified, or even possible replacement, you know the Conservative party is spent as a governing party and needs to spend some time in the wilderness until the Lackies, Hacks, and grifters are expelled.

She had promised tax cuts funded by borrowing

Where did she actually say that?

Wasn’t it the 100 billion pounds of energy subsidies that was to be funded by borrowing?

abandon almost all her economic program after their plans for vast unfunded tax cuts crashed the pound

“unfunded tax cuts” is nonsense. It costs nothing to change tax rates.

Unfunded spending is the problem.

The end of Britain.

“unfunded tax cuts” is nonsense. It costs nothing to change tax rates.

You’re never going to believe this, but when you cut taxes but keep spending the same or increase it, as Truss wanted, that is an unfinished tax cut.

Unfunded spending is the problem.

You can fund spending by collecting taxes. Typically, you want to take more money from corporations and the wealthy, since they have a lot of it. That way, public services get the money they need. It’s a good system.

Current UK slogan, "Lettuce Us Rejoice!"

Where Boris Johnson is concerned you have to see the irony, for all his failings he is a sure fire proven election winner.

Got to respect that, even if you disagree, charisma over the insipid uninspiring.

I can't imagine the fear, shock and trepidation to the grey establishment elitist blob if Johnson throws his hat into the ring and succeeds.

The Tories do not care about rules, like Boris drinking parties. They think they can ignore them.

@itsonlyrocknroll Truss is a hapless fool, however a democratically elected hapless fool.

81326 paying lay members of the Tory Party voted for Truss (with 60399 voting for Sunak). That's about 0.18 of a percent of the 46 million registered UK voters. So yeah democratic but ... kind of a weak point compared to the rest of your dialog.

Truss was an incompetent fool, but more importantly this is just another example of how the Deep State is hurling one wicked servant after another from the castle walls because all of them are increasingly stupid and dangerous to the Deep State’s survival:

Make no mistake about one thing – Truss’s departure was nothing short of a Deep State coup. As manifestly unqualified, stupid, ill-informed, and incompetent as she clearly was, the fact remains that the reason why first Kwarteng and then Truss were YEETED so quickly, is because the Deep State bureaucracy that rules over Whitehall and Westminster, wanted them both gone.

Why? It’s not like either of them were any real threat to the system, after all. Truss and Kwarteng are both committed globalists who believe fervently in this ridiculous “rules-based international order” that the neoclowns and neolibs keep banging on about. They are not merely friendly to the Deep State – they ARE the Deep State.

In my view, the answer lies in the sheer incompetence of the British political class at the moment, which the Deep State increasingly understands to be a severe threat to its own survival.

Truss and people like her – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, the whole lot of them – are all cut from the same cloth. Not ONE of them has any good ideas. Not ONE has the first clue how to run an actual economy, because every single one of these people is stupid, uneducated, unqualified, and incompetent – all at the same time.

Such incompetence and fecklessness is tolerable and permissible when times are good, and all you need is some dumb schmuck who can spout good lines and look good on camera – Tony Blair, for example. There is no threat to the Deep State’s survival in such a situation.

However, when inflation is running at 10.1% officially – and in reality is closer to 25% for the average person – and when ordinary people are muttering rebelliously about protesting in the streets, refusing to pay their energy bills, and shutting down businesses… then that is an entirely different story.

At that point, the survival of the Deep State becomes a real problem. And when the Deep State gets desperate, it does things which, to any sane outsider, look genuinely crazy – but which make sense to the Deep Statists at the time.

Just as one can only tell so many lies until one becomes incapable of even recognizing the truth, a society can only reject so many realities before it becomes unable to function.

Bring back Boris.

He is a fighter, and not a quitter.

If I was going to choose, I'd probably go with Sunak to replace her. The UK is in a dire financial situation, and Sunak has a pretty solid finance background.

Antiquesaving...

She and Boris are only the first.

Don't forget Italy and Sweden. Both returned parties less likely to be supportive of sanctions that hurt their own people to please the US.

Express sisterToday  09:53 am JST

Britain is in for a hell of a ride until a small-government, centre-right party can emerge and either take over from the Tories or force them into line.

That’s exactly what Truss offered and it was a catastrophe.

Come on now. Nowadays the Tories are barely distinguishable from Labour with their big spending, unbridled legal and illegal immigration, suicidal energy policy. Truss's proposal to reduce the tax didn't even scratch the grime on the surface. So to say that she made any realistic effort to wind back the big state is completely divorced from reality.

One of the many negative effects of Brexit is an estimated annual loss of 4% of GNP for the UK. That is about 100 billion pounds annually, of which almost 40% would have been tax take. Jeremy Hunt, our wonderful Finance Minister, is scrambling around looking for 40 billion pounds or so to balance the books. I wonder where that money could have come from then! Liz Hunt, who managed to be a worse PM than Theresa May, is the only person I have heard of in the UK who has looked at the "benefits" of Brexit over the last few years and changed from an ardent remainer to a passionate leaver. What evidence of Brexit success caused that U-turn? We now know she U-turns on everything because she is always proved wrong at lightning speed. "Dear, oh dear" was certainly one way of putting it. Thanks to King Charles for that summary of Liz and her policies. She should never have been anywhere near the running for the job of PM.

The Conservatives can hold off on an election until January 2025. If they called one now, they would get virtually wiped out, so an election anytime soon is unlikely. We could have more than two years of this Tory shambles before we get a chance to vote them out. There will be untold problems this winter when millions will struggle to heat their homes and feed their families. That could create the pressure for an early election, although Penny Mordaunt or Rishi Sunak will be a lot more competent than Liz Truss. What a mess and what misery for so many.

fxgai

abandon almost all her economic program after their plans for vast unfunded tax cuts crashed the pound

“unfunded tax cuts” is nonsense. It costs nothing to change tax rates.

It costs a shortfall of tax income. The markets realised this and punished the pound.

I guess that head of lettuce won in the race for perseverance.

Seriously though, what a bloody mess. People knew she wouldn't last. She doesn't have the fortitude and thick skin to be a UK PM.

Truss quits after 6 chaotic weeks as UK prime minister:

Does anyone care?

Petulant & perverse nation produces paranoiac & pathetic leaders..

Seriously though, what a bloody mess. People knew she wouldn't last. She doesn't have the fortitude and thick skin to be a UK PM

More an issue of not having the competence rather than the fortitude or thick skin.

Starmer gave the expected answer that he didn’t care who the Tories chose as next leader a few months ago. I’m pretty sure he would have answered Truss if he was being honest.

You’re never going to believe this, but when you cut taxes but keep spending the same or increase it, as Truss wanted, that is an unfinished tax cut.

If the same or extra spending is unfunded, it is the spending that is unfunded, not the changes to tax rates.

Consider an obvious example - a tax hike - will it increase revenues? “Yes of course” I imagine you might think. But if the tax hike takes the rate to 100%, meaning there is no monetary reason to do whatever is the subject of that 100% tax rate, revenues would most probably decrease.

Tax is a negative on that which is taxed. You tax something more, you get less of it, but if you tax something less you get more of it.

How tax revenues change as a result is another matter.

Hence “unfunded tax cuts” is an oxymoron nonsense.

You can fund spending by collecting taxes.

100% correct.

What needs to be understood is that tax revenues don’t necessarily follow the direction of tax rate changes.

Typically, you want to take more money from corporations and the wealthy, since they have a lot of it.

And typically unfair tax systems see the tax payers stop paying as much taxes.

It’s a good system.

Not if it doesn’t produce the revenues purported.

It costs a shortfall of tax income. The markets realised this and punished the pound.

That is the narrative in the media, but I think the 100 billion in new unfunded spending was more the problem.

fxgai

It costs a shortfall of tax income. The markets realised this and punished the pound.

That is the narrative in the media, but I think the 100 billion in new unfunded spending was more the problem.

The new spending wasn't a problem for the markets; the tax cuts were. It was a vote of no confidence by the markets, pure and simple.

charles chevaux, yes I see you point. the true weather vane of a democratic mandate would be to call a general election and ask the consent of the electorate.

I was just referring to the conservative leadership rules to select party leader.

If you increase taxes, and earnings stay the same,

What makes you think earnings stay the same irrespective of an increase in tax rate?

Here’s another for you. At different times at JT, different people have suggested that Japan ought cut consumption tax - because they understand that the higher tax rate on consumption acts as a disincentive to consume.

then the government makes more money,

If your assumption held true you would be correct, but it is my assertion that your assumption is false. In the real world, people respond to changes in tax rates by modifying their behavior.

because nobody is going to quit their job and reduce their income to zero because they don't like being taxed.

Well yours truly was happy to leave home for Japan when I was a youngster because of high tax rates, and these days high taxes in Japan are making me reassess, too.

Wealthy people and corporations can relocate away from high tax jurisdictions, so your claim is rather fanciful.

Tax payers aren’t a bunch of cows happy to be milked ad infinitum.

it doesn't disincentivize people to earn more, which seems to be your main misunderstanding.

The reverse is true.

If I can earn another unit of money and keep 80% of it, is one thing.

But if I could earn another unit of money and keep only 55% of it, is another.

The after-tax amount one gets to keep has an important influence in determining whether people bother to earn that extra money, or instead choose to devote their time to other more worthwhile activities. Or emigrate, or seek tax planning advice.

many things that the wealthy can do to avoid paying their taxes. Those things should be stopped.

Stop them from emigrating? Stop them from deciding how much money to earn?

In the real world, these things just aren’t that simplistic.

could you detail to me what an unfair tax system is?

If we are looking at income tax - one that treats different units of income earned differently. Each unit earned should be taxed the same - same is fair. Differently is not.

Reducing the amount of tax reduces revenues.

Empirical evidence shows that to be false.

Taxes in the West have been slashed again and again … and yet debt has increased

Debt is a function of spending and revenues, not of just revenues.

apart from sales tax, which disproportionately affects the poor and therefore is allowed to stand)

Sales tax is a good system for collecting revenues because people can’t easily avoid that, since people want to buy stuff. One of the main reasons for collecting tax revenues is to spend money on the poor (see - the expenditure side), so when considering the poor, you ought to consider whether they benefit from the whole system - not just how the revenue side of the system effects them.

I imagine you dislike it. So why are you in favor of increasing it?

Yes I dislike current debt levels, but it is spending that sees debt increase.

An easy recent example is the US TCJA tax cuts - tax revenues have increased in the US despite the reduction in tax rates - Google will confirm this simple fact.

Therefore the debt there increased - like elsewhere - because of spending increases.

No, the investment class straight up said that it was the unfunded tax cuts.

Not my crowd they didn’t. I checked around after reading so much wacky nonsense on the media, with scant a mention of the 100 billion unfunded new spending.

The new spending wasn't a problem for the markets; the tax cuts were.

That’s one opinion, but I don’t believe it is correct. The 100 billion of new spending was unfunded, no two ways about that.

When there are two different prime ministers in a single parliament should trigger a general election.

But it did not happen when Brown took over from Tony Blair.

To be fair, Blair and Brown tenure in office, a walking in the park in comparison to the tests over the past decade.

The fallout from the economic collapse of the global financial system, Greece brush with debt/Euro, the pandemic, War...

The Global leadership never really recovered.

The sales tax is an interesting example, albeit a simple one. Cutting it can increase consumption and increase the total tax yield. Raising it can dampen consumption and lower the yield. Yep, we know. Regarding the 45p of income tax against 40p, actually, whether or not this could have increased the tax yield is irrelevant at the moment in the UK. People have faced 12 years of austerity from Conservative governments. Many people cannot afford to heat their homes. Working people with multiple jobs struggle to feed their families and are forced to use food banks. Public services are a shambles. Every public service has been cut and the poorer in the society have borne the brunt. This is the result of 12 years of Tory policy, although, to be fair, it has been aggravated by Covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine. A new PM who comes in and instantly gives a tax cut to the wealthy is clearly out of touch with reality. That Liz decided to try and do this in her mini budget with Kwasi showed that she has no idea what is happening in her country and proved her to be unfit for leadership. We need a general election and a new government (from Labour) with a proper mandate and fresh ideas. But the Tories are so unpopular now that they will try and hang on until January 2025 with a new leader. Dear oh dear.

What makes you think earnings stay the same irrespective of an increase in tax rate?

Because nobody goes up to their boss and asks for a pay cut.

Here’s another for you. At different times at JT, different people have suggested that Japan ought cut consumption tax - because they understand that the higher tax rate on consumption acts as a disincentive to consume.

I already mentioned that sales tax disproportionately affects the poor. The poor are those who spend money, and not the ones who hoard it. In an economy dependent on capital flow, this is good for the economy. The wealthy hoarding money is not. However, sales taxes, especially on goods like food, are a disincentive for the poor to spend. This is bad in such an economy.

In future, try reading the entire post before you respond.

Well yours truly was happy to leave home for Japan when I was a youngster because of high tax rates, and these days high taxes in Japan are making me reassess, too.

I will be frank, I do not believe that you uprooted your entire life to move to Japan on the basis of tax. I further do not believe that, no longer being a youngster, and having set down roots here, you are going to move because sales tax went from 8% to 10% a couple of years ago.

Wealthy people and corporations can relocate away from high tax jurisdictions, so your claim is rather fanciful.

Corporations can, yes. That is one of the things that I mentioned should be stopped. Again, you need to read the entire post to get the full context.

People generally don't, however. Tokyo, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, etc. are all known as excellent places to live - if you're rich. But no-one will genuinely move to the Cayman Islands fulltime. Nice for a vacation? Sure. But you won't get to go to the Tokyo Philharmonic. It just doesn't happen. People aren't robots, they don't only do things to maximize income. That's what Ayn Rand-bots will never understand. People like having varieties of food. They like their children having good education. They like being entertained. They like choice. If you're wealthy, these are best accessed fulltime in (nominally) higher-taxed nations. Not Monaco.

Tax payers aren’t a bunch of cows happy to be milked ad infinitum.

No-one said they are. But the thing about paying taxes is you get things for it. I, for one, am happy to pay taxes so that I know, for a fact, that my food has been inspected so I know I won't get sick, so that I know that my water is clean enough to drink, that I can walk on well-paved roads, that my internet and phoneline works, etc. It's a really good deal.

If I can earn another unit of money and keep 80% of it, is one thing.

But if I could earn another unit of money and keep only 55% of it, is another.

OK, so you failed to understand my incredibly easy to understand explanation. I suppose it's really quite impressive. I explained how taxes work, and your response is, "yes, but what if that wasn't how things work, even though it is?".

The after-tax amount one gets to keep has an important influence in determining whether people bother to earn that extra money, or instead choose to devote their time to other more worthwhile activities. Or emigrate, or seek tax planning advice.

I don't know how to make this simpler: if you earn more money, you keep more money. It's really that simple. Only an idiot turns down a pay rise because they want to keep earning $35,000 under a 20% tax bracket instead of $37,000 under a 30% tax bracket. But I suppose a flat tax libertarian might.

Stop them from emigrating? Stop them from deciding how much money to earn?

In the real world, these things just aren’t that simplistic.

I don't want to stop anyone from emigrating, or immigrating. I believe the concept of the nation state is outdated.

People don't decide by themselves how much they earn by themselves. Wage negotiations do occur, but I cannot "decide" that I earn $20,000,000 per day. But, since you want to talk about simplifications...

If we are looking at income tax - one that treats different units of income earned differently. Each unit earned should be taxed the same - same is fair. Differently is not.

Flat taxes are inherently regressive and benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. This is extremely bad for the economy, and worse for human beings, unless you are one of the very few who are wealthy. If you like this idea, then just say it. Don't pretend you are trying to make things better for the most vulnerable in society.

Debt is a function of spending and revenues, not of just revenues.

Nobody disagreed with that. But you are advocating for the reduction on taxes and spending both, which makes life worse for the vast majority of people and better only for the wealthy. Again, maybe you're a Mr. Burns-esque billionaire who doesn't care about the poor, which I could understand, if not condone. But be honest. Speaking of...

Sales tax is a good system for collecting revenues because people can’t easily avoid that, since people want to buy stuff. One of the main reasons for collecting tax revenues is to spend money on the poor (see - the expenditure side), so when considering the poor, you ought to consider whether they benefit from the whole system - not just how the revenue side of the system effects them.

And here we are. "Taxes that poor people can't avoid are good", which implies that taxes on the rich are bad. Cuts in spending, which have also been huge over the past four decades, have led to a new Gilded Age, with the wealthy having more money than they can spend, and the poor starving, or dying from easily cured diseases whose treatment they cannot afford. And you think this is a system that is too kind to the poor.

Yes I dislike current debt levels, but it is spending that sees debt increase.

Again - if you keep spending the same, which was Truss' proposal, but cut taxes, THAT is what increases debt. This is so simple.

An easy recent example is the US TCJA tax cuts - tax revenues have increased in the US despite the reduction in tax rates - Google will confirm this simple fact.

I did Google it. Here's what I found:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that under the Act individuals and pass-through entities like partnerships and S corporations would receive about $1.125 trillion in net benefits (i.e. net tax cuts offset by reduced healthcare subsidies) over 10 years, while corporations would receive around $320 billion in benefits. The CBO estimated that implementing the Act would add an estimated $2.289 trillion to the national debt over ten years,[7] or about $1.891 trillion after taking into account macroeconomic feedback effects, in addition to the $9.8 trillion increase forecast under the current policy baseline and existing $20 trillion national debt.[8]

Many tax cut provisions, especially income tax cuts, will expire in 2025,[9] and starting in 2021 will increase over time; this, by 2027 would affect an estimated 65% of the population and in that same year the law's provisions are set to be fully enacted,[10] however, corporate tax cuts are permanent.

Hm. Huge increases in debt, only tax cuts for corporations are permanent. You should have maybe tried a better example.

Not my crowd they didn’t. I checked around after reading so much wacky nonsense on the media, with scant a mention of the 100 billion unfunded new spending.

And what crowd is that?

That’s one opinion, but I don’t believe it is correct. The 100 billion of new spending was unfunded, no two ways about that.

Well, I can think of a good way to fund spending. But you've already said you don't want it. By the way, what was this 100 billion for? Are you aware that it was for loans, not giveaways, that taxpayers would have to repay? It's okay if you didn't know. You don't appear to be especially well informed on the subject of finances.

It was neck breaking watching her U-turn so many times and in such short time.

In 1991, mfg was 16% of UK GDP. In 2021, only 9%. For Germany the numbers are 25%, 18%. In contrast, in Germany financial services currently produce only 4% of the GDP, in the UK 8%,

Like the US, the UK has become addicted to speculative investment as the powerhouse of GDP, because the best short term ROI far exceeds the ROI from investing in manufacturing. Of course a lot of that best short term ROI is bubble. Unlike the US, it doesn't have quite as much tech, science, and intellectual property power - so it really depends on the City of London to handle foreign speculative investments and tax evasion.

Rishi Sunak is exactly a product of that financial services industry - banking and hedge funds. His own hedge fund was registered in the Caymans (now in a so-called "blind" trust). He may not favor Truss' tax cuts - but he will certainly preserve the elite tax avoidance systems that he has enjoyed. And he won't give a damn about weak British manufacturing or the selling off of UK tech companies.

The sales tax is an interesting example, albeit a simple one. Cutting it can increase consumption and increase the total tax yield. Raising it can dampen consumption and lower the yield. Yep, we know.

This is an interesting one, because at least in Japan’s case it seems consumption tax revenues have gone up after rate hikes to date, and overall tax revenues too seem to be close to record highs now, although the overall composition has changed, with consumption tax increasing, and other tax sources declining versus the good old days.

If cutting consumption tax rates could increase overall revenues, it would make sense to do that.

A new PM who comes in and instantly gives a tax cut to the wealthy is clearly out of touch with reality.

Clearly there was at least a marketing problem; If it were me I would have a flatter rate of income tax. 40% itself is still too high.

But if one is on an income paying the 40% rate, there would no longer have been that extra bracket disincentivizing the earning of extra income. So why not earn more (and thus pay more tax on the extra earned) if one has the choice…

Alas, this is moot, and unfortunately from my perspective, the impression is that the suggestion of going back to Thatcher era top rate of tax crashed the pound, and the 100 billion pounds of new unfunded spending proposed along side had little to do with it.

But if one is on an income paying the 40% rate, there would no longer have been that extra bracket disincentivizing the earning of extra income. So why not earn more (and thus pay more tax on the extra earned) if one has the choice…

You. Don't. Get. To. Just. Choose. Your. Income. Why. Can't. You. Understand. This.

Only an idiot turns down a pay rise because they want to keep earning $35,000 under a 20% tax bracket instead of $37,000 under a 30% tax bracket.

In the first place, your example is peculiar - someone earning only $37,000 should not be paying 30% in tax.

We we’re supposed to be talking about rich people, I thought.

People don't decide by themselves how much they earn by themselves. 

Again, the real world is not that simple.

Don't pretend you are trying to make things better for the most vulnerable in society.

It’s rude to doubt someone like that. I don’t doubt that you want to do good things by people, I just think your ideas are not going to have the effects you desire.

But you are advocating for the reduction on taxes and spending both,

You continue to confuse tax revenues with tax rates, but as for spending I indeed do not advocate for new unfunded spending.

Santa Claus is not the one who pays for all the spending.

And here we are. "Taxes that poor people can't avoid are good",

No, it’s taxes that the rich cannot avoid are good. Consumption tax on your new home, your new BMW, it all adds up - and poor people are poor so don’t buy new homes or new BMWs.

which implies that taxes on the rich are bad.

Taxes on the rich are taxes that are avoided.

And you think this is a system that is too kind to the poor.

Mine were general comments about the relationship of tax revenues and expenditure. I absolutely think that a good system will see the poor come out of the bargain better off, when considering both the tax system and the transfer payments etc that benefit them. A good tax system benefits the poor too because it results in a richer economy with more resources to spare.

Again - if you keep spending the same, which was Truss' proposal,

No it wasn’t.

There was 100 billion of new unfunded spending in there, before it was rolled back.

Re the TCJA, alas you googled wrong.

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year ; FY 2019, $3.46 trillion (actual) ; FY 2018, $3.33 trillion ; FY 2017, $3.32 trillion ; FY 2016, $3.27 trillion.

Tax revenues up each year. Actual revenues. Not “estimates”.

Well, I can think of a good way to fund spending.

What’s good about it if you don’t know for sure exactly how much revenues you would actually get?

By the way, what was this 100 billion for? Are you aware that it was for loans, not giveaways, that taxpayers would have to repay?

Um, exactly. That’s “unfunded” spending.

Its a funny thing that you think tax cuts are “unfunded” but spending is “loans” that taxpayers would have to repay…. That’s that debt stuff we were moaning about.

You don't appear to be especially well informed on the subject of finances.

m’kay.

Been checking about the 100 billion, and alas the media has conflated revenue side changes with spending.

The actual spending which I had in mind is more like 60 bn over six months, and not 100 bn, but unfunded spending nonetheless.

If anything, the media’s inability to report things accurately confirms my view that their narrative was misleading about the causes of the panic.

Tax and Economic growth.

https://www.oecd.org/mena/competitiveness/41997578.pdf

The OECD summary report give a insight into the relationship and fine balance between tax and growth.

Summary and conclusion scroll down and start from 4.

fxgai, points reflect the importance of tax changes and the need to minimise the excess burden of taxation.

Unfunded has a host of meanings and interpretations politically, taking into account if gains in economic performance can be realised.

This is the risk element.

With a 70 year plus rise in the tax burden, UK will need to make changes and restructure an antiquated unfit for purpose system of taxation.

fxgai

Been checking about the 100 billion, and alas the media has conflated revenue side changes with spending.

The actual spending which I had in mind is more like 60 bn over six months, and not 100 bn, but unfunded spending nonetheless.

If anything, the media’s inability to report things accurately confirms my view that their narrative was misleading about the causes of the panic.

But, in fact, it was very clear what was the cause of panic and you seem unable to admit it. The markets response, a vote of no confidence in the PM, was based on the tax cuts alone, pure and simple.

She believes that cutting taxes on the very wealthy will increase government income, and she acted on that belief. Never mind that her beliefs are not based in reality, where most of us live.

The markets response, a vote of no confidence in the PM, was based on the tax cuts alone, pure and simple.

That’s the nonsense I’ve been calling out.

The elephant in the room was the unfunded spending. Unfunded spending means more debt, and that’s why the gilts sold off.

Even the guessed numbers tell the tale. 2 bn was slated by some as the “cost” of the elimination of the detrimental top tax bracket, versus 60 bn of new spending.

When the media says something that doesn’t make sense, thinking people question it.

We met some Brits, with whom we have kept up contact, who are doing quite well for themselves. Had dinner with the missus last week. They have a business doing construction and repairs for small businesses and homes, and they are making money hand over fist. I get the impression from them that there is plenty of opportunity in Britain for people who are able and willing to work.

On the subject of doing well.....

My relatives in the Old Country are doing quite well for themselves. We sent them aid after World War II, used clothes and a little money, but they are back on their feet now. The combination of social education, social medicine, and hard work, works wonders.

By the way, they are scared silly of an invasion from Russia. There are many small countries in Europe which would not exist without the protective umbrella of Uncle Sam. Whatever our failings, the US has kept freedom alive in Europe since World War II.

None of this farce would have happened had BoJo stayed PM. He delivers! He delivered the most successful Tory landslide win at the last election. He delivered Brexit, unchaining Great Britain from the heavy financial, bureaucratic and cultural shackles of continental Europe. An independent Britain would have once again shone its Britannic light and led the world. But nasty-minded “unTory” types conspired to clip his wings.

Chaos. The government can't be takne seriously.