Essay by Eric Worrall
I affirm my position that the ONLY reason why Jeremy Hunt raised taxes on working and middle class voters is to uphold the Government’s Net Zero agenda.
The following is from Prime Minister Jeremy Hunt’s UK Government Autumn Budget statement, sent yesterday.
…
Although my decisions today resulted in a substantial tax increase, we did not raise the title tax rate and taxes as a percentage of GDP will only increase by 1% over the next 5 years.
I start with personal taxes.
Demanding more from those with more means that the first tough decision I made on tax was to reduce the threshold at which the 45p rate is payable from £150,000 to £125,140.
Those earning £150,000 or more will pay just over £1200 more in tax each year.
We’re also making tough decisions about tax-free grants.
I am maintaining at the current personal income tax allowance, higher rate threshold, primary national insurance threshold and inheritance tax threshold for the next two years through April 2028.
Even then, we’ll have the most generous tax-free subsidies of any G7 country.
I am also reforming allowances for unearned income.
The dividend allowance will be cut from £2,000 to £1,000 next year and then to £500 from April 2024.
The annual exemption on capital gains tax will be cut from £12,300 to £6,000 next year and then to £3,000 from April 2024.
Overall, these changes still give us more generous subsidies than countries like Germany, Ireland, France and Canada.
And, because OBR forecasts half of all new vehicles will be electric by 2025…
…to make our auto tax system fairer, I have decided that from April 2025, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the Vehicle Excise Tax. …
…
Read more: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-collection-statement-2022-speech
Prime Minister Jeremy Hunt plans to raise taxes equal to 1% of GDP.
How much of that money does the government spend on Net Zero? Here it gets a little more murky.
The Grantham Institute estimates promoting Net Zero will cost 2% of GDP, but the government insists most of that investment comes from private business.
I would argue that 2% of mandatory spending, as forced by Net Zero policies, is actually a disguised tax, equivalent to the government collecting 2% more in taxes and spending it directly on Net policies. Zero.
Grantham also expects a net benefit of 4% of GDP, but even if you believe in alarmism, this alleged benefit is not immediate and will only accrue if others make cuts. similar CO2 emissions.
title detection
- Under current policies, the total cost of climate change damage to the UK is expected to rise from 1.1% of GDP today to 3.3% in 2050 and 7.4% in year 2100.
- Strong global mitigation action could reduce the impact of climate change damage on the UK from 7.4% to 2.4% of GDP by 2100.
- The greatest risk of damage from climate change to the UK economy is due to catastrophic disruption to the global economic system (4.1% of GDP value).
- Foreign trade, under current policies, would reduce UK GDP by 1.1% as other countries suffer from climate change.
- Agriculture is one of the UK sectors expected to be most affected by climate change. The reduction in arable land as areas become drier is predicted to halve the total contribution to UK GDP by 2100.
- There are solid economic reasons to go to net zero: benefits from reductions outweigh costs in the second half of the century
- Co-benefits include significant improvements in health, largely due to cleaner air and economic stimulation through investment.
- combine, net to zero transition (cost estimate is up to 2% of UK GDP) expected to have a net benefit of around 4% of GDP.
- In the future, natural disasters, tourism, forestry, transportation, conflict and displacement are likely to emerge as important channels of climate risk.
- Actively investing in adaptation measures such as coastal protection can significantly reduce the risk of climate-related damage.
Read more: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminst acad/publication/what-will-climate-change-cost-the-uk/
It got worse. Last month, the Government accepted a high court ruling that its Net Zero policies were inadequate. The ruling will force the government to step up enforcement, increase direct spending, or both.
GOVERNMENT OF THE UK REMOVED NETWORK STRATEGY APPEARANCE
October 2022
Michael Salau, Priya Thakrar and Rhia Gould
In July 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the UK government’s Net Zero Strategy (“NZS”) breach your obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA”).
…
While the government has applied for permission to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision, on October 13, 2022it confirmed in a letter to the Supreme Court that it would not pursue its appeal. The Government will have until March 2023 to update its NZS and provide more information on how its policies will achieve the goals set out in the CCA.
…
Read more: https://beale-law.com/article/uk-government-to-drop-net-zero-strategy-appeal/
Jeremy Hunt is legally obligated to explain to the court how he intends to bring Britain back into compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008. Hunt has until March 2023 to provide an explanation. there. He has not done so yet.
In his words, Jeremy Hunt’s tax increase amounts to 1% of GDP – half the estimated economic cost of Net Zero.
How much of that 1% tax increase will ultimately be spent on promoting Net Zero? I will argue all. Under the terms of Climate Change Act 2008, the UK government is legally obligated to meet intermediate targets in its progress towards Net Zero 2050. The Supreme Court’s decision was that the government was in breach of its obligations. So the options are, repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 or let the UK Government make up the shortfall in private investment – raise taxes and spend whatever is necessary to fix the breach. violate the government’s obligation to meet the Net Zero target, including the target intermediaries, regardless of the cost.
So the 2% hidden tax becomes 1% real tax and 1% hidden tax.
Doesn’t this effectively leave voters in the same position as before, effectively still paying the 2% Net Zero tax? Sure is not. Much of the hard work for the hidden 2% will be paid by corporations. In my opinion, what Jeremy Hunt has done has been quietly shifting much of the burden of funding Net Zero directly onto the middle and working classes. – silent tax cuts for the rich, many of whom are likely to have benefited net from Net Zero policies, through their investments in wind farms and solar panels.
In a way, this transfer makes the burden of funding Net Zero more obvious. But regardless of whether corporations or the working and middle classes pay the bills directly, that 2% is an ongoing burden on the UK economy. All costs paid by corporations are passed on to consumers.
The only real solution I see is to abandon the coercive Net Zero and allow UK energy companies like Caudrilla to restore fair gas prices, by allowing them to crack. And of course, if the claim that renewable energy is cheaper is true, allow the green revolution to proceed at its own pace without unbearably expensive government coercion.
Dear British voters.
Related
