Best Of

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

Yet the pathetic Lib Dem’s want to give them billions.

My retirement age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Where’s my compo ?

Get on the blower to the Fox Beater General

God knows what that means but it was not a serious comment.

Translation: Get on the phone to Jolyon Maugham

My mate manages the Bob Monkhouse estate, or certainly did. He had folder after folder of comic gags and asides.

That wouldn’t make it into his archive.

My Father still enjoys sex at 86. He lives at 82, its no distance
AND OTHER CLASSICS

Remember the Golden Rule

Sooner or later, any decision made by Starmer’s Labour government turns out to be damaging for the UK

This is now being applied to the Gibraltar deal. Falling apart under scrutiny

What's the problem with the Gibraltar deal? They have fixed the border FUBAR so that people are able to cross it freely again as they need to. Gibraltar remains a BOT, the military facility remains untouched, and the people who voted in almost unanimity to not fuck their lives up get the fix they voted for.

Loads of details about the passport arrangements now being revealed. Allegations on X such as: every British citizen entering Gibraltar will now have their passports checked by Spain and a stay in Gibraltar will count as a stay in Schenghen. As visiting the EU. The Spanish will control how and when the British visit British territory abroad

Likewise some are claiming this will apply to British troops or sailors in the Navy

OK. This is Gibraltar. The deal is great for everyone who lives there - who didn't vote to be walled in. The deal is great for the workers Gibraltar needs to cross from Spain and back each day. The deal makes no difference to most people travelling to Gibraltar as how may are close to the 90/180 barrier? Which itself is on its way out as we work towards a solution longer term.

So in practice this deal in a very practical way improves the lives of the people of Gibraltar who voted for it. But imposes a theoretical dictat on Mr Keyboard of Clacton who doesn't travel to forrin anyway.

Honestly this is classic @Leon. Shouting about stuff and expounding simple solutions to things that are always more complicated to implement. You wanted Brexit, which you thought was simple, but it had consequences, one of them being the border at Gibraltar. Are you coming up with a solution? No, just shouting again. This solves the big problem, but unfortunately may have a knock on problem for a small minority of others. You didn't seem to have any sympathy for all those people who were buggered by the 90/180 rule who had commitments (eg family), property of businesses in the EU, which was a huge number of people yet you are now worried about the very very minute number of Brits who both may make a visit to Gibraltar and who in addition might fall foul of the 90/180 day rule. With the exception of people stationed on Gibraltar it is unlikely to impact any UK visitors who weren't bordering on exceeding the limit anyway. You know those ones you didn't care about previously.

As far as people stationed on the rock there will obviously have to be a solution because some are not just Navy sailors visiting, but based there for 3/6/12 months so will all fail the 90 day test.

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

Thanks. Not trivial if you see NI as simply a futher tax - which it is, as money is money.

For someone receiving say £50,000 pa gross from earned income the NI would be roughly £3k. This is not trivial. I suggest combining IT and NI at around 30% for income generally so that the person with an income of £50,000 gross from whatever source pays the same as the bloke who gets up at 6am to go to work on an overpriced season ticket to feed his starving children and pay the mortgage on an overpriced house.

Pensioners like me are extremely privileged, and I think as a group they are asking too much of others. I decline to join their number.

As another pensioner quite honestly I don't think I've ever been as well off as I am now. I've paid for my house, I've no debts (which I had when working due to a combination of misfortune and incompetence) I'm not paying into savings accounts for pensions and I'm not paying NI.

I am the same, but the other side of the coin that as over 80's, we both suffer health issues and mobility and tempus fugit

Ha ha, yes. I've been told by the physio I ought to walk 1000 steps a day, to increase general mobility and improve balance. Takes up pb reading time, though!

Just achieved our 63rd wedding anniversary too, and the sun is shining so quite c cheerful this morning. Anniversary celebrations this weekend.

Blaming Reeves for the -0.3% growth is just absurd.

It's a worldwide effect of Trump's tariffs that are seizing up trade & causing a global contraction.

Blame Trump & not Reeves.

Actually it is both, not least the job destroying budget but also bringing forward pre April economic activity to beat stamp duty hikes but of course exports to beats Trump's tariffs

Furthermore Reeves was not blind to the consequences of her budget and trade woes

We're now also going to get months of speculation as to which taxes are going to be increased in the Budget at the end of October.

Which will act as a further disincentive to investing by business and more financial angst among individuals as to pensions planning.

Reeves would do less damage if she increased income tax by 2% now and got it over with.