Best Of

It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.

The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.

'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?

Should we get pensioners back into work?

£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.

Cut the triple lock entirely.

£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.

NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.

50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).

Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.

Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.

I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.

And means test the NHS for the wealthy

Define wealthy.

Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.

As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.

One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.

- 1p on income tax.
- Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes.
- NI for everyone who works.
- Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death.
- Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate.
- Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities.
- Freeze thresholds.
- Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move).
- Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it.
- Abolish the triple lock.
- Those with assets should contribute something towards social care.
- Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses.
- Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic.
- Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we.
- Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)

And so on.

There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number

Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS

As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable

I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit

They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.

Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.

The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.

No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.

Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.

The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.

Decades ago my wife saw a gynaecologist privately but the same gynaecologist operated on her under the NHS

Similarly I had the same experience with a bilateral hernia

And that was the stupidity with Reform's private health proposals. Private health consultants are NHS consultants doing extra work for more money.

Why are you all so pitifully desperate for nihilistic atheism to triumph?

It is really bizarre. Like you want everyone to share your own Godless unhappiness

On the contrary, many countries where people take their religion most seriously are mired in conflict and both social division and economic crisis, while there is a strong correlation between those that are the least religious and both national happiness and prosperity.

The US used to be a notable exception - relatively religious but prosperous and peaceful. But look where they're heading now, in part driven along by excess religiosity

Au contraire, I think America went wrong when the American left abandoned Christianity and went for woke and culture wars. The right has merely reacted

That really is reinterpreting events to fit your predetermined conclusion. As usual.

Leon is saying that billion dollar corruption, and assault on both constitution and rule of law are because the Democrats were too woke ?

That's not even provocative; just nonsense.

It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.

The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.

'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?

Should we get pensioners back into work?

£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.

Cut the triple lock entirely.

£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.

NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.

50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).

Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.

Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.

I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.

And means test the NHS for the wealthy

Define wealthy.

Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.

As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.

One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.

- 1p on income tax.
- Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes.
- NI for everyone who works.
- Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death.
- Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate.
- Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities.
- Freeze thresholds.
- Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move).
- Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it.
- Abolish the triple lock.
- Those with assets should contribute something towards social care.
- Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses.
- Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic.
- Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we.
- Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)

And so on.

There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number

Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS

As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable

I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit

They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.

Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.

The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.

No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.

Generally the choke point is the same pool of consultants and specialists that you have to see, before (and often during) getting private treatment that also give a proportion of their time to the NHS, with the private patients essentially paying to jump the queue. If there was incentive for a significant batch of people to switch to private, either private waiting times would increase dramatically, or consultants would do more private work and less NHS, making the NHS position worse.

The governments approach of using the over capacity in the private sector to deal with the NHS backlog is the more sensible one. Continuing what the Tories were doing before.

The absurd rationing of testing continues.

I know more and more people who pay private facilities to get MRIs etc. XRays seem to be easier in the NHS system.

Early detection of problems is cheaper.

In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.

I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.

Good luck!

In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.

I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.

The very best of luck with the new job. Sounds like a challenge, which is always welcome.

It's time to outline £100bn in spending cuts and tax rises, split 75% towards spending cuts with the majority coming from welfare and entitlements. If the government doesn't do this and continues to borrow like a drunken sailor we're heading for a bond vigilante strike and another bout of QE which will push inflation up and destroy people's disposable incomes.

The only way out is to cut welfare spending and get people back into work. We can't afford to pay the lazy to sit at home doing nothing on benefits.

'Benefits' according to the OBR are £150bn on Pensioners; £88bn on UC; and £74bn on other benefits. Where would you axe to get the £100bn?

Should we get pensioners back into work?

£20bn each out of UC and "other" benefits.

Cut the triple lock entirely.

£20bn out of the state pension by tapering above £40k, spend half of the saving on increasing the state pension for those who don't have any or significant private income in retirement.

NI payable on all income types/merge NI and income tax.

50% haircut on defined benefit public sector pensions for amounts over £40k (so a £60k DB pension becomes £50k).

Freeze thresholds for a further 3 years.

Cut at least 500k public sector jobs within two years, ban use of agency staff and severely limit the use of consultants and contractors. Use half of those savings to offer competitive salaries for technical roles.

I think that would probably make a £100bn worth of closing the deficit, the resulting fall in bond yields and inflation would probably add another £20bn saving per year on the interest bill.

And means test the NHS for the wealthy

Define wealthy.

Otherwise people like me will either die because they can't afford treatment (and I am already at high risk of early death because of the NHS's failures to spot stages 1, 2 or 3 of my cancer) - and I can't - or be bankrupted and made homeless.

As for the state pension, it gets taxed if the pensioner has other income.

One of the reasons for the deficit is the amount spent on furlough during Covid - money largely spent on those in jobs and to keep them in jobs. It was about £140 billion. They too should contribute.

- 1p on income tax.
- Extend VAT to food, books/newspapers & children's clothes.
- NI for everyone who works.
- Limit or abolish tax relief for those giving to charity and place an upper limit on the tax saved by those contributing to charity whether alive or after death.
- Limit tax relief for pension contributions to the basic rate.
- Extend VAT on education to all education providers, including universities.
- Freeze thresholds.
- Place a limit on public sector pay increases (the amount shovelled at train drivers by Reeves never gets mentioned here but it was a stupid move).
- Abolish the WFA and other pension-specific benefits. Aim for the state pension to be the same as the tax free income as and when we can afford it.
- Abolish the triple lock.
- Those with assets should contribute something towards social care.
- Introduce council tax bands for higher value houses.
- Increase or widen the charges for council services beyond the basic.
- Ensure that overseas visitors pay for the NHS. Other countries manage this. So can we.
- Limit tax relief for private equity companies loading companies up with debt, taking dividends and asset stripping. (Thames Water and other companies in a similar position should be allowed to go bust and then nationalised for a £. Too often asset stripping has been presented as overseas investment. It is a gigantic con.)

And so on.

There is a nasty streak among some of the commentary on here. Everyone seems to want others to pay taxes and those who work on here seem to think that they should be exempt from any measures to help pay down the deficit, thinking it must all be done by the poor and the old. It also gives the impression that some welcome AD because they will be able to pressure the old and sick into killing themselves to save money or withhold treatment so that they suffer. It is disgustingly frankly. I am surprised to see @Big_G_NorthWales among their number

Can I just say that wealthy to me include celebrities and multi millionaires who can contribute to the NHS

As far as your list is concerned I agree with each and every one and it needs a government to accept we cannot continue borrowing, spending and taxing and think the unthinkable

I want the NHS available to all but those with the broadest shoulders should contribute as indeed should the pension be reviewed as to just who should receive this very expensive benefit

They do contribute - as indeed have I - through taxes. In my case for decades. But there is no justification for denying the NHS to people who are seriously or terminally ill. You are advocating for a US style system which will harm the sick. I am one of their number and I think it disgusting that you should wish to deprive me of the NHS when I need it most. You do not define what wealthy means - name a figure and let's see what this actually means.

Indeed, means testing the NHS and barring the wealthy just seems like an odd and very mean spirited thing to do. From a practical sense I doubt it would save very much money given that the "wealthy" that BigG mentions are likely to have private health insurance and it breaks the idea that all British citizens/residents get treated equally by the health service, rich and poor alike get the same (sometimes not very good, sometimes excellent) treatment.

The comment about those with the broadest shoulders contributing is also very off colour for BigG, I think he's been watching too much Jez on Tiktok or something. At my peak earnings a few years ago my net rate of tax was 43% and I paid well into six figures per year in tax, to suggest that the "wealthy" don't already make a huge contribution is factually incorrect. Indeed it is this anti-wealth attitude among those who call themselves conservative that resulted in the previous government just ceding the subject of wealth creation to the left.

No one ever suggests giving a tax rebate/benefit to anyone who has private health insurance which helps take the pressure off our sainted NHS.

Well indeed, though I'm not sure how much effect it would have. Insurance doesn't really cover the chronic diseases and conditions that use so much NHS resource. Again it's how we answer that 80/20 question. 20% of people are taking up 80% of NHS resources, how do we reduce that number so that they become less frequent healthcare consumers. Are there gains we can get from the 80% that use 20% of resource? Probably, but I'd suggest we optimise the other part first as there will be a lot of low hanging fruit in process automation and preventative care.

Research into chronic diseases helps, but a lot of conditions are associated with ageing, and there doesn't seem much one can do about that!
In my own case, if I'd carried on smoking, which I gave up on becoming a father, I might well be dead now and the costs of keeping me alive consequently reduced.

In other news I have accepted a new job for a British startup at C-Level, I start in September and I'm very excited at the prospect. There are only ~30 people at the company, I'll be the second person in at exec level. I've obviously taken a pretty drastic pay cut to do this from my finance and fintech days but for the first time in ages I'm really looking forwards to going back to work.

I think it will be about 11 months off in total spent with the family, which is the best year I've had since the year my then girlfriend (now wife) and I went travelling together for six months and got married a few months after we got back. If you can afford to take the time off, I'd highly recommend doing a year(ish) long career break and just spending the time with family and not worrying about work stuff. I'm obviously very lucky that I have earned well in my previous roles and that my wife also has a high income so I do recognise that not everyone would be able to do it.

...

One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:

"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."

Goodbye to All That
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/goodbye-to-all-that

Good Lord, that was a depressing read

The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.

But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots

In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK

A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.

Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.

I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.

600,000 dead say otherwise.

As the flag of secession, it literally wasn't "part of" the United States.

I just noticed that buried in there was a typically provocative piece of nonsense from Leon.

...

One FBI guy's experience of the 'new' FBI under Trump:

"I recount those events more in sorrow than in anger. I love my country and our Constitution with a fervor that mere language will not allow me to articulate, and it pains me that my profession will no longer entail being their servant. As you know, my wife and I are expecting our first child this summer, and this decision will entail no small degree of hardship for us. But as our organization began to decay, I made a vow that I would comport myself in a manner that would allow me to look my son in the eye as I raised him."

Goodbye to All That
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/goodbye-to-all-that

Good Lord, that was a depressing read

The political capture of both law enforcement and the justice system is happening very rapidly, and far more blatantly than even I expected.

But at least it’s being captured by the right side. By American patriots

In the UK that capture is being done by people, agencies, cultures - that actively hate the UK

A true American patriot would be someone who respected the US Constitution, and was glad the US won the Civil War and World War II.

Not someone who hates the US Constitution (besides the 2nd Amendment), and flies the flag of America's enemy in either the Civil War or WWII.

I don't know if you can really call flying the Confederate flag flying the flag of America's enemy. It was part of America.

600,000 dead say otherwise.

As the flag of secession, it literally wasn't "part of" the United States.

Strange how panicked & alarmed PB is, by the mere possibility Christianity might see a revival

Also very telling

Anecdotally, I see some truth in this. At my daughter’s uni (St Andrew’s) “going to church” is oddly fashionable. The same way taking smack was cool in my time

Don't see much panic or alarm here- that's mainly you being trollier than thou, again.

It would be lovely if church attendance were increasing. I wouldn't have to teach Sunday School quite so often. But it's not showing in the wear on paths to church. Polling errors (they do happen, I hear) are way more likely as an explanation.

Why don’t you actually read the YouGov report instead of airily dismissing it. Isn’t that tantamount to
a felony on PB?

Since you ask...

I heard about it months ago, the report came out in April and caused a bit of a stir in church circles at the time. Very shortly afterwards, church people noticed that the outcomes of the survey didn't match other, better, measures of people in specific churches. In the CofE, that includes every churchwarden in every church counting people turning up Sunday services across a month.

I'm sure that YouGov and the Bible Society did the best, most faithful work they could, but it really looks like something has gone wrong with the sampling or modelling.

Well, you did ask.

Well they didn’t read it very well because the report expressly says much of this rise is in small random Pentecostal churches etc. NOT CofE

From the blog I linked to earlier,

Between them, these two denominations [CofE and RCC] have reportedly grown their regular attendance by almost 1.5m people, out of the total reported growth of 2.1m, or over 70% of the total growth. But Church attendance data simply does not back that up.

It looks like a polling fail. They happen. In the same way that actual election results don't match polling. And for avoidance of doubt, I'm all for growth in belief. But that includes trying to bear as truthful witness as I can.