In the grand scheme of things, that is true. However, that isn't the only issue - and public perceptions count. Here's how it's put in an article [1] in the Economist:
> Cutting taxes is the politically easy bit of a growth plan, in other words. But by needlessly cutting the top rate of tax on the highest earners and whacking homeowners with higher mortgage payments, the government has associated growth with unfairness in the public mind. That impression will strengthen as Ms Truss slashes public spending to regain market confidence.
[1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/09/28/how-not-to-run-...
Can't wait to see the housing market crash to through the floor.
If this happens then private equity funded businesses will sweep in and buy as many houses as possible, for cash with no upward chain and no mortgage issues. You can't compete with that; a serious price crash will probably lock you out of home ownership forever.
There are already companies doing this. A crash will accelerate it. Eg https://slate.com/business/2021/06/blackrock-invitation-hous...
Even ignoring that though, and assuming that companies could be regulated well, you'd still be looking at a situation where all young people would be transferring most of their wealth to the owners of these companies forever. There would be no way for people to use property investment to fund their retirement, people would never feel secure enough to have kids, and ultimately whether or not people would be able to live in an area would be at the whims of whether a business will rent them a home. It's a massively dangerous situation for a society.
People use the equity in their homes to do things like funding startups. Loads of successful business started out with founders mortgaging their properties. This is would bring about the end of that being an option.
Apart from the 1% future(!) cut in lower bands and NI rise reversion the rest helps more those receiving a lof of money or already have a lot to spend, investing, potentially in property.
The direct benefit portion of the mini budget for the rich accounts for dozens of billions in a period when any money is desperately needed for common budget and through that by those not having it and are in trouble, for those forming the dominant part of society, operating the country.
A necklace with an o on the front is a signal to some folks.
The IFS reckons the total tax changes will amount to £45bn/yr
The real issue as far as I can see was that none of it was costed and they had no analysis by the OBR. It just looked entirely shady and planned on a napkin.
Many public services eventually get asked to be revenue neutral, which kills their value, which leads to people saying things like, "See! Public transit is a waste!"
Think their university system, for example -- it's almost entirely subsidized by the government, but the generationally wealthy are by and large the biggest users of it, especially at Oxford and Cambridge. Not here to debate the merits of that system -- but the wealthy are objectively using disproportionality more of the services compared to the rest of the country.
Apply that across entire government sectors (healthcare, transit, pensions, real estate) and you have a government that, yes, while the wealthy are nominally paying the most, they're paying less into it than is sustainable for the amount they use it and expect it to function.
There's a whole separate debate about efficiency/"austerity", but "some" is not better than "none" if each of the "some" is a net-negative on the system.