"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
Ben there! Or at least on its shores. When I had an extra day or two on my conference time in Seattle and went to see the Museum of Flight. Even got to see inside the Boeing 247 when it landed in front of me.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
Completely random, but there was a Supreme Court judgement released today in a case involving Ukraine, and irrespective of the issues at hand, and as I have thought vaguely before, but the Supreme Court website really is top notice. It's very easy to find cases, the press notices are thorough but concise on the issues and facts, the decision pages easily link to judgements and hearing videos. So many public institutions could learn a thing or two from them.
Here's some budget small-print - apologies if we've already done this.
Hunt has limited pension TFC. This paves the way for future reductions in this limit (or freezes of this limit, amounting to the same thing).
Below is from BBC website:
"The lifetime allowance will be abolished from April 2024, but hidden in the Budget documents was the fact that the amount of tax-free cash has been limited to £268,275. If you’ve already taken that much out of a pension pot as a lump sum, then it looks like you will be limited to that, unless you had existing rights to higher tax-free amounts."
Yes, I'd noticed that. It seems very sensible, and somewhat compensates for what on the face of it looks like an extravagantly generous change in abolishing the LTA. And, yes, you are probably right that this heralds the gradual reduction of the maximum tax-free sum.
Someone who paid a LTA tax charge recently is going to be mightily pissed-off that they could have delayed until the LTA was abolished.
Yes. A friend of mine who I had dinner with last night is exactly in that position. Somehow I don't think he is going to get a rebate!
Same as all of the parents of 1 year olds who's kids won't be eligible until after they turn 3!
Completely random, but there was a Supreme Court judgement released today in a case involving Ukraine, and irrespective of the issues at hand, and as I have thought vaguely before, but the Supreme Court website really is top notice. It's very easy to find cases, the press notices are thorough but concise on the issues and facts, the decision pages easily link to judgements and hearing videos. So many public institutions could learn a thing or two from them.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
I thought we kept a big chunk of the benefit:
a - Bercause they did not wriggle out of their N (20?) year rental contract. b - Because they left a lot of the staff here.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
I applauded the childcare for 1- and 2- year olds, but I hadn't realised it didn't apply to high earners. That's pretty stupid. Not only for the reasons Nick points out, but also because the proportion of £100k plus earners with one and two year old children must be a) tiny and b) disproportionately able to scale back under the ceiling and precisely the sort of people the economy would benefit from getting back to work.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
There must be some (many ?) constituencies where no-one earns 100 k -- e.g., mean salary in Gwynedd is 33k.
Apart from the Vice Chancellor of Bangor University and some executives at the ever failing Betsi Cadwalladr Health Board, noone round where I live will be remotely troubled by this.
So, not a high priority on the @YBarddCwsc List of Things Needing Fixing, though of course it does hurt pb.com's core demographic.
Completely random, but there was a Supreme Court judgement released today in a case involving Ukraine, and irrespective of the issues at hand, and as I have thought vaguely before, but the Supreme Court website really is top notice. It's very easy to find cases, the press notices are thorough but concise on the issues and facts, the decision pages easily link to judgements and hearing videos. So many public institutions could learn a thing or two from them.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Yep, are the top 5%* of retirees really gonna be running back for a little extra? And on the other side of it. Rebuilding adult education, making it free and easily accessible would do wonders for the millions trapped in low paid dead ends.
*No ideal but it must be very small numbers who are capped.
Still trying to absorb the details of the budget but the overall response seems pretty positive. My guess, FWIW, is that the OBR are still being overly pessimistic and that the economy will end up growing a few tenths of a percent rather than shrinking but, frankly, this makes very little difference to either the macro picture or the polling.
Given it is another small step back to competence and away from madness the government should get a very small boost. My guess is that NOM has become slightly more likely but Labour majority is still the favourite. Labour's recent progress in Scotland is probably more important in that regard than the budget.
Most of the Budget was good stuff but tinkering around the edges, the government able to do little to change the global macro-economic outlook and unwilling to face up to the self-inflicted wound that is Brexit.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
I don't know, shovelling shit seems like a tough physical job but he seems to be doing his best.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching towards reality. That's a good thing.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Average incomes haven't really grown since the late 90s anyway. Might as well go back, grab a nice four bed in Enfield and a few Apple shares.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Average incomes haven't really grown since the late 90s anyway. Might as well go back, grab a nice four bed in Enfield and a few Apple shares.
Maybe the years round 2000 were the best we humans can do. A golden era in hindsight.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching
towards reality. That's a good thing.
Great to have you back and posting regularly again, Richard.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Average incomes haven't really grown since the late 90s anyway. Might as well go back, grab a nice four bed in Enfield and a few Apple shares.
The trouble is that you might have grabbed a few Marconi shares.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
Yep, that's me.
I'm gambling I can work for Partner and get a big uplift but right now I'm worse off (and also mentally worse off healthwise) no question.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
The first part of your sentence is spot on, but the reality is that we don't recognize the decisions of the FDA or Japanese regulatory authorities as far as drug safety goes.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
Yep, that's me.
I'm gambling I can work for Partner and get a big uplift but right now I'm worse off (and also mentally worse off healthwise) no question.
I find Sunak's failure to notice this big fucking cliff with 100%+ marginal tax rates utterly astonishing.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Yes, I'd echo that. But there's a lot of nuancing to do. To what extent does the technology which makes our lives easier provide unquantifiable benefits? No longer having to get car tax in the post officez to take a trivial example. And acceptable in what context? Why is it falling? If living standards are falling for unavoidable external reasons (such as big increases in energy prices due to the actions of some madman in Russia, which we decide we would rather suck up than let him win), that's a very different KOF to living standards falling because of some reason whuch may have less support (for example, in a hypothetical future in which all fossil fuels are suddenly outlawed). I would support a fall in living standards to 90s levels for the former reason but not for the latter, though I accept some would arrive at different conclusions.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
What has got us into this mess is short termism, lack of investment in both public and private sector, a refusal of the political parties to put forward a coherent plan for our demographics, a QE fuelled asset bubble and the self inflicted wounds of a couple of bonkers Tory governments under Johnson and Truss.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
The reality for people like me, who have been in the private sector, is that I will work until I am sufficiently unwell that I can't. I have zero prospect of a happy, healthy and wealthy retirement. It is just not going to happen. If I am healthy at 70 I will still be working. If I am not I won't but I will be poor and seeking to eek out capital.
With the collapse of final salary schemes in the private sector that is the reality for most of us and there will be many far worse off than me. The gap between those with final salary, publicly funded pensions and the rest will become a real stress point in our society. At 70 I will, health permitting, still be paying large sums of money to pay the pensions of those who retired at 60. Its just not right, and not only for roofers.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching towards reality. That's a good thing.
How do address @williamglenn 's point on adopting decisions of the Japanese and US markets then?
Don't forget we approved Covid drugs far faster than the EMA did.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
I'm not sure there is any rule where living standards have to always rise. I think it's quite weird and entirely unexplained that they have done so consistently.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching
towards reality. That's a good thing.
Great to have you back and posting regularly again, Richard.
Thanks! I've been working rather hard, so haven't had much time to loiter here.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
Not yet got the fur-lined Jacuzzi in your Boeing Business Jet, then?
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
There must be some (many ?) constituencies where no-one earns 100 k -- e.g., mean salary in Gwynedd is 33k.
Apart from the Vice Chancellor of Bangor University and some executives at the ever failing Betsi Cadwalladr Health Board, noone round where I live will be remotely troubled by this.
So, not a high priority on the @YBarddCwsc List of Things Needing Fixing, though of course it does hurt pb.com's core demographic.
It does affect you because people will be working less or emigrating to avoid it, resulting in lower growth and tax revenue overall to pay for the things you care about.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
lol So streaming tv is the epitimome of progress now is it. In the 90s you could get a decent flat in London for 60 yes 60 grand. Cars were not especially unreliable in the 90s, you have to go back to the 70s for that. Only improvement since that time is in technology and i think many would agree smartphones and facebook are mixed blessings. Outside technology where are the massive improvements in peoples lives because i fail to see it.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
I came across a roofer in his late 70s a few months back. Hale and hearty, he was. Though of course highly atypical, hence it sticking in my memory.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
I agree the period up to 2007 was pretty good. The banking crash then came along.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching towards reality. That's a good thing.
How do address @williamglenn 's point on adopting decisions of the Japanese and US markets then?
Don't forget we approved Covid drugs far faster than the EMA did.
The problem isn't the speed of approval, it's whether the pharmaceutical company puts in the application (which takes a lot of work and expense) in the first place.
But yes, there may be some merit in recognising US decisions. Dunno about Japan - are there many cases where it would be relevant? I thought they were notoriously slow, but I'm not an expert in this.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
lol So streaming tv is the epitimome of progress now is it. In the 90s you could get a decent flat in London for 60 yes 60 grand. Cars were not especially unreliable in the 90s, you have to go back to the 70s for that. Only improvement since that time is in technology and i think many would agree smartphones and facebook are mixed blessings. Outside technology where are the massive improvements in peoples lives because i fail to see it.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
I agree the period up to 2007 was pretty good. The banking crash then came along.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
I agree the period up to 2007 was pretty good. The banking crash then came along.
Welcome back, I say that from some sense of deja vu - spooky.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
Huh? Jesus has been injured for longer than a few months unless I've missed something dramatic.
There's a big difference between 'adopting its decisions' as part of a captive bloc and pragmatically recognising its decisions alongside those of peer regulators like the US and Japan.
'Pragmatically recognising its decisions' is a great euphemism for the reality - that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to waste time and money on applications which would only give them access to the relatively small UK market.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching towards reality. That's a good thing.
I see Hunt did the - now traditional - 'here's a change to the sale of alcohol that could only have happened with Brexit' thing, but generally it was reassuringly citizens of nowhere.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
Huh? Jesus has been injured for longer than a few months unless I've missed something dramatic.
The death of rail, variously predicted because of home working and then Covid, does not appear to be happening:
"Latest transport use figures from DfT (to March 13 2023) show rail reached 100% of pre-COVID numbers on February 10 2023 (and again on Feb 11-14 and 22). Graph shows 28-day moving average as solid bold line for road, heavy dashes for rail, light dashes for Tube."
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
lol So streaming tv is the epitimome of progress now is it. In the 90s you could get a decent flat in London for 60 yes 60 grand. Cars were not especially unreliable in the 90s, you have to go back to the 70s for that. Only improvement since that time is in technology and i think many would agree smartphones and facebook are mixed blessings. Outside technology where are the massive improvements in peoples lives because i fail to see it.
Music was better in the 80s!
I actually think some of the best music was in the 1970s a much maligned decade. Axtually a survey said ordinary people were happiest in 1976. Sure life is great for the privileged top 3 to 5% now but we are talking about ordinary people.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
In the round, most people are better off now. Certainly the further back in time you regress, the worse conditions become for everyone except straight white men. You can make a plausible case in purely monetary terms for the mid-nineties, on the basis of housing costs of nothing else, but the degree of societal progress over the last thirty years has been enormous.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
Huh? Jesus has been injured for longer than a few months unless I've missed something dramatic.
EDIT - oh, I see. Went over my head for a second.
Yes, there was a resurrection, but he was never really the same after that night in Gethsemane.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
There must be some (many ?) constituencies where no-one earns 100 k -- e.g., mean salary in Gwynedd is 33k.
Apart from the Vice Chancellor of Bangor University and some executives at the ever failing Betsi Cadwalladr Health Board, noone round where I live will be remotely troubled by this.
So, not a high priority on the @YBarddCwsc List of Things Needing Fixing, though of course it does hurt pb.com's core demographic.
It does affect you because people will be working less or emigrating to avoid it, resulting in lower growth and tax revenue overall to pay for the things you care about.
Well the current booming growth rate suggests perhaps many of them could be replaced with little down-side
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
I came across a roofer in his late 70s a few months back. Hale and hearty, he was. Though of course highly atypical, hence it sticking in my memory.
I'd imagine being alive was one of his most atypical characteristics.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
Huh? Jesus has been injured for longer than a few months unless I've missed something dramatic.
EDIT - oh, I see. Went over my head for a second.
Yes, there was a resurrection, but he was never really the same after that night in Gethsemane.
A big asterisk on his career given he has never proved it on a cold, windy Tuesday in Stoke imo.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
There must be some (many ?) constituencies where no-one earns 100 k -- e.g., mean salary in Gwynedd is 33k.
Apart from the Vice Chancellor of Bangor University and some executives at the ever failing Betsi Cadwalladr Health Board, noone round where I live will be remotely troubled by this.
So, not a high priority on the @YBarddCwsc List of Things Needing Fixing, though of course it does hurt pb.com's core demographic.
It does affect you because people will be working less or emigrating to avoid it, resulting in lower growth and tax revenue overall to pay for the things you care about.
Childcare costs are substantial for only a few years -- so only a weapons-grade lunatic would take a long term decision about his/her life based on something that is very temporary.
In fact, pretty soon, the mini-Casinos will be heading to independent school and no doubt then you'll be bleating that you'll emigrate if Labour take away VAT exemption.
But, if you want to emigrate ... go ahead. I don't expect you do anything that we can't find a replacement for.
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
Thought Hunts comments at the weekend were a disgrace saying people should work to 70. Maybe if you are in an interesting non physical job like Hunt yes but try being a roofer in your 60s. Totally out of touch as always
I came across a roofer in his late 70s a few months back. Hale and hearty, he was. Though of course highly atypical, hence it sticking in my memory.
Not professionally, but a few years back I came across my dad doing some roofing jobs on his house renovation aged around 80. A few years later, he was helping my brother erect yurts. Not working professionally, of course, but still liking to keep his hand in.
Builders like to build. Fortunately he's retired his demolition skills...
@KareemRifai The co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream just awarded Aaron Maté a journalism award, specifically citing his pro-Russia propaganda on Ukraine, his denial of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and his interviews with Syria Nazi Party surrogate Dennis Kucinich.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
I'm not sure there is any rule where living standards have to always rise.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
Fun question. Personally I've been happy all my life, so anything since the 60s would be fine. Culturally I think the country has become much more open since the turn of the century (genuinely a positive from the Blair era, as Matthew Parris has said), so the Noughties were pretty good, and an optimistic time for many.
In the round, most people are better off now. Certainly the further back in time you regress, the worse conditions become for everyone except straight white men. You can make a plausible case in purely monetary terms for the mid-nineties, on the basis of housing costs of nothing else, but the degree of societal progress over the last thirty years has been enormous.
Yeah, stuff is forgotten like early 90s weekend night out in most towns had a fair chance of being unwillingly dragged into some random brawl.
Life has improved over time, even when economic prospects and meritocracy have not. We should still be critical of governments presiding over economic underperformance even if life as a whole is getting better however.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
I thought we kept a big chunk of the benefit:
a - Bercause they did not wriggle out of their N (20?) year rental contract. b - Because they left a lot of the staff here.
Plus lots of the science work of both EMA and MHRA devolves to academic# on committees, often for both organisations. It’s pretty reasonable to accept EMA data and decisions, and tailor to U.K. needs.
The logical thing for me to do is actually to drop to a 3-day a week contract, and fuck it.
May as well spend more time with my family.
It's a real challenge when you retire/surrender to work out what the hell you want to do. You'll never mind working out what it might be, but it is somewhat baffling.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
I'm not sure there is any rule where living standards have to always rise.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
That was, I'm sure, the argument of Communists in eastern Europe.
If people in the UK didn't have smartphones, and people in France did, I think people would notice.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
I'm not sure there is any rule where living standards have to always rise.
No, but people are not unreasonable to desire it.
I think you have hit on the perfect phrasing. Well done.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
That was, I'm sure, the argument of Communists in eastern Europe.
If people in the UK didn't have smartphones, and people in France did, I think people would notice.
In addition, I'd rather be ill, or have cancer, nowadays than in any previous decade. Treatments are improving all the time, often thanks to technology.
That's a really important factor as well. It's the main reason I'd say I'd rather live today than even in the 2000s.
The death of rail, variously predicted because of home working and then Covid, does not appear to be happening:
"Latest transport use figures from DfT (to March 13 2023) show rail reached 100% of pre-COVID numbers on February 10 2023 (and again on Feb 11-14 and 22). Graph shows 28-day moving average as solid bold line for road, heavy dashes for rail, light dashes for Tube."
I would be fascinated to know if the distribution of those journeys have changed, because the occasions on which I have taken commuter services recently have been pleasantly devoid of fellow passengers, unlike pre-covid trips.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
That was, I'm sure, the argument of Communists in eastern Europe.
If people in the UK didn't have smartphones, and people in France did, I think people would notice.
Thats the point. In eastern europe they did have unreliable cars and lacked basic consumer goods. that hasnt been true in the west since at least the 60s or 70s. And im talking of a situation where no country has a smartphone not one does one doesnt. Do you think smartphones have been major beneficiaries for humanity because i could certainly live without them.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
200 AD/CE? Leastways south (enough) of Hadrian's Wall.
The logical thing for me to do is actually to drop to a 3-day a week contract, and fuck it.
May as well spend more time with my family.
I dropped to a 4 day week when my wife went back to work after our second daughter was 1. Several years later, my third daughter started primary school, and it became reasonable to go back to work. But by that time my FTE rate was starting to tickle the 40% rate. So I didn't. And as the years have gone on I've found ways to keep my taxable income under that level. I could go back to full time, and I could take higher paid jobs. But that would come with harder work, which the current tax regime disincentivises.
The death of rail, variously predicted because of home working and then Covid, does not appear to be happening:
"Latest transport use figures from DfT (to March 13 2023) show rail reached 100% of pre-COVID numbers on February 10 2023 (and again on Feb 11-14 and 22). Graph shows 28-day moving average as solid bold line for road, heavy dashes for rail, light dashes for Tube."
I would be fascinated to know if the distribution of those journeys have changed, because the occasions on which I have taken commuter services recently have been pleasantly devoid of fellow passengers, unlike pre-covid trips.
I believe they have changed - and that's led to significant issues with overcrowding on some services, and changes in funding (e.g. reduced season ticket sales).
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
But there was a lot of prejudice around then, racism, sexism and homophobia. Also the dangers of climate change were not appreciated. Great if you’re a white male. Not good if you’re anyone else.
It’s almost as if retail banks have no business being in investment banking
I really do wish RBS and HBOS had been liquidated back in 2008, the government should have bailed out depositors but everyone else involved with those two banks should have been burned. The moral hazard and expectation bailing them out created has been a pox on the country and the wider world.
I honestly think they should have let the whole thing collapse in 2008. Yes there would have been mass unemployment for a while but the advantages. 1. The bankers would have truly learned their lesson and we would not have the issues we have now. 2. Property prices would have returned to sanity and young people would have been better off. 3. The privileged top 3 to 5% would have taken deserved losses and this would have increased the sense of fairness in society and reduced inequality. 4. We would now likely have a much more dynamic economy based on the respect of risk.
So, are you proposing that depositors outside the protection scheme - i.e. all corporates - were not protected?
OK. Royal Bank of Scotland sees a run on deposits. They are forced to close. Companies are unable to make payroll, because they have no access to their deposits because the bank is being wound up.
Depositors at HSBC, Lloyds, etc. see the writing on the wall, and then try and withdraw all their deposits too, because they see what's happened at RBS.
Everybody tries to withdraw all their money. Which bank, no matter how well capitalized, can survive even 20% of their depositors heading for the exit all at once. That's the nature of banking: you borrow short (deposits) and you lend long (mortgages).
Are you planning on never stepping in in this scenario? I.e. every bank goes bust. Or are you planning on stepping in at some point to stop contagion.
Are you going to protect all deposits, therefore creating moral hazard? Or just some fraction, which encourages bank runs if there is even the slightest concern that a bank might be insolvent or if there is even a fear that other people might think it could be insolvent. As the costs of withdrawing money are zero, the incentive is always to do so.
And the resolution companies that are setup to recover mortgage debt after the dissolution of the banking system, are they going to foreclose on millions of homes simulateneously?
Basically, at some point the Government and the BoE step in. There is no "oh, let it all collapse" option. The only question is when you do so.
You step in to save the depositors while letting the rest collapse. Bond holders, share holders etc get wiped out - that's the lack of moral hazard, but depositors don't run.
That's what the Icelandic Government did and it worked.
Iceland did not play a systemic role in the global financial system.
And Greece did play a systemic role in the global financial system?
Greece was basically bankrupted and had its depositors taking haircuts on their deposits in order to prevent the bond holders (not so coincidentally including French and German banks) from facing the moral hazard of what they'd invested in.
Their depositors lost out, the country was basically bankrupted, the austerity they faced was real and devastating austerity the likes of which we never had in this country and for what?
Stepping in to protect depositors so businesses can keep operating is sensible. Stepping in to protect shareholders from seeing their holdings getting wiped out when they've made a bad investment? Not so much.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
That was, I'm sure, the argument of Communists in eastern Europe.
If people in the UK didn't have smartphones, and people in France did, I think people would notice.
In addition, I'd rather be ill, or have cancer, nowadays than in any previous decade. Treatments are improving all the time, often thanks to technology.
That's a really important factor as well. It's the main reason I'd say I'd rather live today than even in the 2000s.
Yes but obesity is now much higher than the 90s so people are unhealthier. What good is advances in medical treatment if people are unhealthier. This is the problem with measuring everything in monetary terms.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
But there was a lot of prejudice around then, racism, sexism and homophobia. Also the dangers of climate change were not appreciated. Great if you’re a white male. Not good if you’re anyone else.
Also lucky with HIV and with human BSE - in the sense that those could have been a lot worse.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
There are dozens of reasons for accepting declining living standards. We all have our hobbyhorses. I would, for example, accept a future where I was poorer - let's say one in which I need to work for another 12 months before retirement to retire on the same level of comfort - in return for a UK less trewn with graffiti and litter and with more trains. Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
If for example we suddenly had no smartphones or streaming tv would people be less happy. Probably not. Technology has made a small number of uber nerds rich but as time goes on its contribution to human happiness becomes less and less. Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no. Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
Hugely agree with this. Though the irony of me agreeing with this on my smartphone is not lost on me. But I'm only on my phone at all because I can't find my kindle.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
Unreliable cars? I thought that was the 70s, not the 90s.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
200 AD/CE? Leastways south (enough) of Hadrian's Wall.
Bit shit if you were a slave. And as a peasant being north of the Military Zone was possibly an improvement on being under Roman control.
I do wish Rejoiners would stop banging on about Europe. That said, what a stupid point to make. Utterly fails to understand the issues. Still, that’s to be expected from Euro-extemists. It’s just like Farage.
The answer to your point is in your post. Rejoiners want to rejoin the EU. Asking them to stop banging on about Europe is like asking Marxists to stop banging on about revolution or class, or asking Christians to stop banging on about Jesus.
The latter is a bit weird given he has been injured a few months now and Haaland surely more worthy of attention having got his Michelle last night.
Huh? Jesus has been injured for longer than a few months unless I've missed something dramatic.
EDIT - oh, I see. Went over my head for a second.
Yes, there was a resurrection, but he was never really the same after that night in Gethsemane.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
But there was a lot of prejudice around then, racism, sexism and homophobia. Also the dangers of climate change were not appreciated. Great if you’re a white male. Not good if you’re anyone else.
I dont know if you were alive then but certainly by the late 90s there wasnt a great deal of racism and homophobia. Queer as Folk a groundbreaking tv show on gays came out in 1999 and actually showed a gay man having sex with a 15 year old boy.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
It is completely perverse to accept any decline in living standards. It is absolutely being inflicted deliberately by an ideologically-crazed minority peddling climate alarmism, and we are badly in need of a counter-narrative.
Well if we don't do something about climate change you might not have any choice re a decline in living standards some time in the future and it may be dramatic.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
But there was a lot of prejudice around then, racism, sexism and homophobia. Also the dangers of climate change were not appreciated. Great if you’re a white male. Not good if you’re anyone else.
Also lucky with HIV and with human BSE - in the sense that those could have been a lot worse.
You’re absolutely right. I’d completely forgotten about NvCJD too. Now that was really quite scary.
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
The largest two-year fall in living standars since the 1950s - true, but that takes us back to, what, 2014 standards? Which weren't exactly penury. And given that the last two years have seen us paying for lockdown and the impact of war in Ukraine, not unexpected - when has there been a confluence of events like this?
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
As an intellectual exercise, to what year would PB readers be willing to retreat, in terms of living standards, before it would be considered unacceptable? To the nearest decade for older readers….
Living standards in the 90s were perfectly fine. Foreign travel relatively cheap by then and affordable homes with still plenty of technology around for entertainment.
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
Unreliable cars? I thought that was the 70s, not the 90s.
Mass produced cars were pretty shit, in my view, until the late 90s.
And the betting barely moves – politicalbetting.com
Comments
"Disposal income per person will fall by 6% this financial year and next, according to the OBR, representing the largest two-year fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
That could lead to people dipping into their savings to pay for things."
22m have less than £1k of savings, half of which have less than £100 and they are going to be the ones hit hardest......
https://twitter.com/EULondonMark/status/1636046883780018186
Sharp falls in stocks and in oil prices suggesting a global slowdown but again the markets may say one thing while the evidence may say something else. We'll see.
The Budget does very little to persuade more than a small part of the 10 million economically inactive back to work - yes, changes to childcare provision will help a lot. However, what about the nearly 1 million women who can't work because they are full time carers? What about the disabled among whom the unemployment rate is well above average?
Most of those who have recently retired have no desire to reason and those older people who do try to re-enter the work place bump up against serious ageism - that's another cultural issue which won't be resolved in one Budget.
This is where economic theory bumps up against cultural reality - the traditional solution to labour shortages is to bring in extra labour from overseas but that isn't the option it might once have been (except apparently for construction sites). I also remain unconvinced the Government has any notion of the scale of the black (or at least grey) economy.
IFS notices that the budget has actually made the £100,000 tax trap that @Casino and other have mentioned much worse:
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the childcare proposals announced today will create “one of the most severe distortions you are ever likely to see within a tax and benefit system”...
A parent with a 1 year-old and a 3-year old whose childcare provider charges England’s average hourly rate for 40 hours per week would, after these reforms, find that their disposable income (i.e. earnings net of tax and childcare outgoings) falls by £14,500 if their pre-tax pay crosses £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £134,500, meaning a parent earning £130,000 would be worse off than one earning £99,000.
For those with higher childcare costs the distortions are even more absurd. A similar parent paying average London rates for childcare, using 50 hours per week, would see a £20,000 fall in disposable income when their pre-tax earnings cross £100,000. Disposable income would not recover its previous level until pre-tax pay reached £144,500.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2018-0191-0192.html
The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
a - Bercause they did not wriggle out of their N (20?) year rental contract.
b - Because they left a lot of the staff here.
Apart from the Vice Chancellor of Bangor University and some executives at the ever failing Betsi Cadwalladr Health Board, noone round where I live will be remotely troubled by this.
So, not a high priority on the @YBarddCwsc List of Things Needing Fixing, though of course it does hurt pb.com's core demographic.
And on the other side of it. Rebuilding adult education, making it free and easily accessible would do wonders for the millions trapped in low paid dead ends.
*No ideal but it must be very small numbers who are capped.
Given it is another small step back to competence and away from madness the government should get a very small boost. My guess is that NOM has become slightly more likely but Labour majority is still the favourite. Labour's recent progress in Scotland is probably more important in that regard than the budget.
And what do the BBC expect to be done about this? One strongly suspects they expect the chancellor to conjure up money from nowhere. Which was what got us into this mess in the first place.
(Congrats on the 'captive bloc' bit - you really have eased into your born-again Brexit Evangelical role, neatly gliding over the fact the EMA was British-based and largely British-staffed. Bravo!)
Still, at least the government is now inching towards reality. That's a good thing.
Good luck getting people to go back to unreliable cars, no streaming TV, etc.
The reality is that there have been massive improvements in many parts of peoples' lives. Albeit tempered by issues such as rising unaffordability of housing.
I'm gambling I can work for Partner and get a big uplift but right now I'm worse off (and also mentally worse off healthwise) no question.
But there's a lot of nuancing to do. To what extent does the technology which makes our lives easier provide unquantifiable benefits? No longer having to get car tax in the post officez to take a trivial example.
And acceptable in what context? Why is it falling? If living standards are falling for unavoidable external reasons (such as big increases in energy prices due to the actions of some madman in Russia, which we decide we would rather suck up than let him win), that's a very different KOF to living standards falling because of some reason whuch may have less support (for example, in a hypothetical future in which all fossil fuels are suddenly outlawed). I would support a fall in living standards to 90s levels for the former reason but not for the latter, though I accept some would arrive at different conclusions.
With the collapse of final salary schemes in the private sector that is the reality for most of us and there will be many far worse off than me. The gap between those with final salary, publicly funded pensions and the rest will become a real stress point in our society. At 70 I will, health permitting, still be paying large sums of money to pay the pensions of those who retired at 60. Its just not right, and not only for roofers.
Don't forget we approved Covid drugs far faster than the EMA did.
Coincidence?
So streaming tv is the epitimome of progress now is it.
In the 90s you could get a decent flat in London for 60 yes 60 grand.
Cars were not especially unreliable in the 90s, you have to go back to the 70s for that.
Only improvement since that time is in technology and i think many would agree smartphones and facebook are mixed blessings.
Outside technology where are the massive improvements in peoples lives because i fail to see it.
But yes, there may be some merit in recognising US decisions. Dunno about Japan - are there many cases where it would be relevant? I thought they were notoriously slow, but I'm not an expert in this.
EDIT - oh, I see. Went over my head for a second.
"Latest transport use figures from DfT (to March 13 2023) show rail reached 100% of pre-COVID numbers on February 10 2023 (and again on Feb 11-14 and 22). Graph shows 28-day moving average as solid bold line for road, heavy dashes for rail, light dashes for Tube."
https://twitter.com/philatrail/status/1635955580522184707/
Others will have different priorities for what the state might do which might not equal 'living standards', or at least easily measurable ones.
In fact, pretty soon, the mini-Casinos will be heading to independent school and no doubt then you'll be bleating that you'll emigrate if Labour take away VAT exemption.
But, if you want to emigrate ... go ahead. I don't expect you do anything that we can't find a replacement for.
May as well spend more time with my family.
Builders like to build. Fortunately he's retired his demolition skills...
https://twitter.com/KareemRifai/status/1636059365143719936
@KareemRifai
The co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream just awarded Aaron Maté a journalism award, specifically citing his pro-Russia propaganda on Ukraine, his denial of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and his interviews with Syria Nazi Party surrogate Dennis Kucinich.
Would i want to live without a refrigarator..hell no.
Could i live without streaming tv. Of course.
Life has improved over time, even when economic prospects and meritocracy have not. We should still be critical of governments presiding over economic underperformance even if life as a whole is getting better however.
If people in the UK didn't have smartphones, and people in France did, I think people would notice.
https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2023/03/20230315-mm-statement/
That's a really important factor as well. It's the main reason I'd say I'd rather live today than even in the 2000s.
In eastern europe they did have unreliable cars and lacked basic consumer goods.
that hasnt been true in the west since at least the 60s or 70s.
And im talking of a situation where no country has a smartphone not one does one doesnt.
Do you think smartphones have been major beneficiaries for humanity because i could certainly live without them.
Several years later, my third daughter started primary school, and it became reasonable to go back to work. But by that time my FTE rate was starting to tickle the 40% rate. So I didn't. And as the years have gone on I've found ways to keep my taxable income under that level.
I could go back to full time, and I could take higher paid jobs. But that would come with harder work, which the current tax regime disincentivises.
Greece was basically bankrupted and had its depositors taking haircuts on their deposits in order to prevent the bond holders (not so coincidentally including French and German banks) from facing the moral hazard of what they'd invested in.
Their depositors lost out, the country was basically bankrupted, the austerity they faced was real and devastating austerity the likes of which we never had in this country and for what?
Stepping in to protect depositors so businesses can keep operating is sensible. Stepping in to protect shareholders from seeing their holdings getting wiped out when they've made a bad investment? Not so much.
Should please the XR brigade.
But I'm only on my phone at all because I can't find my kindle.