- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
The second (child benefit) is bizarre given our low birth rates and the demographic problems that will result.
Otherwise, not bad, if looking for cuts. But I don't know what 'AD' is so can't comment on that.
ETA: I was astonished to get child benefit on child three as I thought the two child cap was universal. From a population engineering perspective, you could limit it at some number (or means test - the poor would qualify for other benefits if you removed CB after saying child two or three anyway)
Air Defence?
I am fairly sure originally you didn't get child benefit for the first child, but did get it for subsequent ones. That might be a better model.
I would get rid of free prescriptions completely and charge, say, £2 a pop. You can then get rid of the bit of the DWP that manages it. I believe only 10% of prescriptions are paid for so you'd still make money.
I would certainly remove free prescriptions for the over 60s and maybe move it to state pension age.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
I would point out - being a cynical so-and-so - that judging by the way the AD Bill is developing and the suggestions now coming out of Whitehall for its implementation (personal Navigators available 24/7 every day of the year / screening for suicide eligibility at A&E) , pretty soon all the disabled, mentally ill, old and sick people will be pushed into suicide, which should conveniently cut most of the NHS budget to about £160 and remove the need for most pensions too. (Oh and it will save the cost of suicide prevention schemes. Another saving - yay! And palliative care homes - double yay!)
So our deficit should disappear pretty quickly and there will be lots of money left to lavish on the super fit people left behind (there really ought to be a phrase for them).
Oh and anyone who thinks that giving the NHS a financial interest in the death of its expensive patients won't lead to the death of those expensive patients is a naive fool.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
Head count was sharply reduced in the period 2010 to 2019 and then exploded again during Covid with the massive and largely unsuccessful test and trace systems. It has continued to grow and is growing now. I don't accept that there is little fat to cut in those circumstances although there will obviously be exceptions. If the public sector as a whole was doing what your Trust is doing we would not be in such a mess.
FWIW I think we need to largely get rid of HR departments and their associated paperwork, I think we need to thin out management reducing the layers, I think we need to do our best to avoid meetings that achieve little or nothing. I think we need to apply technology in a way that genuinely improves productivity. I think we need to completely stop the early retirement and back on Monday for another wage routine that seems to have become so common.
In my line of work we introduced a remote empanelling day during Covid. This meant that the jury is selected without being present and the clerk then phones the unlucky selectees to come in the following morning. This added a day to every High Court trial. All too often, being available, this is useful in terms of preparation time. But we can't afford such fripperies or such conveniences. It should have been stopped.
One of the problems in the Civil Service is the pay structure. You cannot be paid more for doing your job well so have to go into management. This means many people go into management that aren't suited for it. First level management then gets so micro-managed (probably because so many of them are crap at it) it is impossible to do the job well.
My sister's a good example of that. She has been a primary school teacher for 20 odd years and maxed out her salary for the role many, many years ago. The only way to get a further increase is to take a managerial role as head or deputy head but she is a real oddity in education because she actually likes kids (no accounting for taste) and teaching (ditto). So she has never applied. I can't say she would not be a good manager but it certainly would not maximise her skill set.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
The second (child benefit) is bizarre given our low birth rates and the demographic problems that will result.
Otherwise, not bad, if looking for cuts. But I don't know what 'AD' is so can't comment on that.
ETA: I was astonished to get child benefit on child three as I thought the two child cap was universal. From a population engineering perspective, you could limit it at some number (or means test - the poor would qualify for other benefits if you removed CB after saying child two or three anyway)
Air Defence?
I am fairly sure originally you didn't get child benefit for the first child, but did get it for subsequent ones. That might be a better model.
I would get rid of free prescriptions completely and charge, say, £2 a pop. You can then get rid of the bit of the DWP that manages it. I believe only 10% of prescriptions are paid for so you'd still make money.
I would certainly remove free prescriptions for the over 60s and maybe move it to state pension age.
Prsescriptions - er, the payments to the pharmacists still have to be managed don't they? So no saving theres urely?.
Anyway the real news from last night is Elon’s shoes at the rapists’ and murderers’ dinner in the White House. If those babies were floating unattended in the Caribbean the US Navy would blow them to buggery.
There was a group photo from last night of an even worse group of individuals, Musk, Christiano Ronaldo and Gianni Infantino. I will preserve PB breakfasts by not reposting the picture.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
The second (child benefit) is bizarre given our low birth rates and the demographic problems that will result.
Otherwise, not bad, if looking for cuts. But I don't know what 'AD' is so can't comment on that.
ETA: I was astonished to get child benefit on child three as I thought the two child cap was universal. From a population engineering perspective, you could limit it at some number (or means test - the poor would qualify for other benefits if you removed CB after saying child two or three anyway)
Air Defence?
I am fairly sure originally you didn't get child benefit for the first child, but did get it for subsequent ones. That might be a better model.
I would get rid of free prescriptions completely and charge, say, £2 a pop. You can then get rid of the bit of the DWP that manages it. I believe only 10% of prescriptions are paid for so you'd still make money.
I would certainly remove free prescriptions for the over 60s and maybe move it to state pension age.
Assisted Dying! I had wondered too but see C's later post.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
That should have been 3 or 4 Labour governments back...
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
As an international man, it's great to be recognised
I hear the government is about to (if it hasn't already) publish it's first ever men's health strategy.
One of 364 International Mens Days every year!
(Awaits brickbats...)
Wait, there's a day that's isn't a men's day? And two some years?
Just waiting for international whitey day to silence the Reform-types
We celebrate international men's day by not making a bloody song and dance about it.
The ubiquitous Tim Stanley was on R4's Thought for the Day this morning with a paean to men being strong and silent. A muesli infused splutter when he said 'we men don't even like talking'. Obviously he needs to send a memo to himself.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
That wasn't my source.
The government isn't implementing legislation governing discrimination against women. It is failing to do so and in some case actually discriminating against women and then spending a load of money defending claims and losing.
A look at what they are actually doing, whether what they are doing is lawful and effective is well overdue, frankly.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
That should have been 3 or 4 Labour governments back...
You must be counting Wilson and Callaghan, Blair and Brown as four separate administrations otherwise we are back to Attlee.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
If current staff are not effective, that does not imply the solution is to sack them all. It implies you need to hire better or more people.
As an international man, it's great to be recognised
I hear the government is about to (if it hasn't already) publish it's first ever men's health strategy.
One of 364 International Mens Days every year!
(Awaits brickbats...)
Wait, there's a day that's isn't a men's day? And two some years?
Just waiting for international whitey day to silence the Reform-types
We celebrate international men's day by not making a bloody song and dance about it.
The ubiquitous Tim Stanley was on R4's Thought for the Day this morning with a paean to men being strong and silent. A muesli infused splutter when he said 'we men don't even like talking'. Obviously he needs to send a memo to himself.
Lol as I've got older I've noticed that a ot of the traits men ascribe to women eg gossiping and bitching is simply projection. As for talking (about themselves) men have no problems in that department. I think it's time for the backlash against the backlash against woke.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
If current staff are not effective, that does not imply the solution is to sack them all. It implies you need to hire better or more people.
Labour won't cut welfare New Zealand style as Labour MPs have made clear they would veto it. Labour won't cut pensions either Greece style as they had to even reverse most of their winter fuel cuts due to backbencher and voter pressure.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
Incentivising senior civil servants to underspend their budget while still delivering their targets would be a game-changer.
Make their gongs dependent upon how much they saved during their careers...
Seriously, I wouldn't try to cut budgets. Roll out the same as last year. But tell the managers they you expect them to come in under by up to 10%. Allow staffing to go in the mix, managing headcount separately is a nonsense.
Labour won't cut welfare New Zealand style as Labour MPs have made clear they would veto it. Labour won't cut pensions either Greece style as they had to even reverse most of their winter fuel cuts due to backbencher and voter pressure.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
The inexorably rising costs of both welfare and pensions being the inheritance from the previous Tory shambles, of course.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
AD, please, what's that?
Assisted dying?
Or in my world, anaerobic digestion.
In mine, Advocate Depute, which is the day job and our somewhat archaic title for a prosecutor.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
Labour won't cut welfare New Zealand style as Labour MPs have made clear they would veto it. Labour won't cut pensions either Greece style as they had to even reverse most of their winter fuel cuts due to backbencher and voter pressure.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
The inexorably rising costs of both welfare and pensions being the inheritance from the previous Tory shambles, of course.
So what’s labours excuse for not dealing with it.
They’ve been in power for 16 months. A quarter of this parliament.
No one doubts they inherited a shit sandwich. But they’re in charge now. Just constantly blaming the last lot for their ability to do fuck all won’t cut it. It’s as tedious as the Tories dragging up Liam Byrne’s jocular note.
Labour won't cut welfare New Zealand style as Labour MPs have made clear they would veto it. Labour won't cut pensions either Greece style as they had to even reverse most of their winter fuel cuts due to backbencher and voter pressure.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
I agree with you about what Reeves won't cut but there's no magic formula that says tax rises depress the economy while spending cuts boost it. Quite the opposite in fact given the effects Howe and Osborne had on growth.
Good morning everyone, and thank-you Gareth for the header.
A segment from historian Heather Cox-Richardson suggesting that the Epstein-related evidence is so widespread, and the footprints will be so extensive, that erasing it all will be impossible.
We have already seen how much continues to exist in the Epstein estate, and in the records of someone around Ghislaine Maxwell, who released the birthday diary to the media. Perhaps they all (especially Maxwell) kept copies of everything that they could get access to ... thick as thieves etc.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Reform it. Simply rebrand it. Still call it the triple lock but cap it or make it an average of the three or even link pensions (and benefits growth) to GDP.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Diversity officers - that 500 didn't smell right. A look at what is presumably the source
suggests why. It actually includes officers in the relevant Government dept dealing with wider policy in this field, so you can knock a lot off because they're not HR diversity officers in the sense implied. And even allowing for that, it is a very broad definition anyway
(a) anyone whose job includes but is not restricted to d. (b) diversity as in, for instance, diversity, equality and inclusion. So implementing much wider legislation - for instance, that governing discrimination against women
Its a cheap target, and only shows a desire for headlines rather than real understanding. Similarly @DavidL targetting HR departments more generally.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
Wider than that. They could sack women when the employees fell pregnant, and exclude people of certain races from being considered for promotion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
How effective are they is a question worth asking. Because the evidence from some of the people in these jobs in actual court cases show that they don't have the first clue about the law and are part of the problem rather than problem solvers.
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
If current staff are not effective, that does not imply the solution is to sack them all. It implies you need to hire better or more people.
It’s just disappointingly lazy GBNews material, as is the foreign aid and child benefit stuff. “Ban woke and all our problems are solved.”
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Which is gibberish.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
Reform it. Simply rebrand it. Still call it the triple lock but cap it or make it an average of the three or even link pensions (and benefits growth) to GDP.
Just link state pensions to CPI, like most private pensions. Job done.
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
As an international man, it's great to be recognised
I hear the government is about to (if it hasn't already) publish it's first ever men's health strategy.
One of 364 International Mens Days every year!
(Awaits brickbats...)
Wait, there's a day that's isn't a men's day? And two some years?
Just waiting for international whitey day to silence the Reform-types
We celebrate international men's day by not making a bloody song and dance about it.
The ubiquitous Tim Stanley was on R4's Thought for the Day this morning with a paean to men being strong and silent. A muesli infused splutter when he said 'we men don't even like talking'. Obviously he needs to send a memo to himself.
Lol as I've got older I've noticed that a ot of the traits men ascribe to women eg gossiping and bitching is simply projection. As for talking (about themselves) men have no problems in that department. I think it's time for the backlash against the backlash against woke.
Another benefit of Tim Davie's resignation could be the end of the religious cant slot. I'd also get rid of Moral Maze and thin out the media programmes
At the moment, the Overseas Aid budget is being used to provide fully paid for (overseas fees) university places for medical students from various countries.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
We wouldn’t get doctors trained to UK standards back though - and that’s the issue
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
On mansion tax it looks like it's going to be the proposals as mentioned in Telegraph and elsewhere recently. Revalue the 2.4m properties in Council tax bands F G and H. Then levy an annual charge on the 300,000 most valuable of these.
This would probably affect properties worth £1.5m plus with bands within the top 300,000 so those with really expensive properties pay more than those just falling into the top 300,000.
Starts in 2028 and intended to raise £600m. Seems a lot of work to raise £600m but of course once established the scope and levy can be expanded...
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
On mansion tax it looks like it's going to be the proposals as mentioned in Telegraph and elsewhere recently. Revalue the 2.4m properties in Council tax bands F G and H. Then levy an annual charge on the 300,000 most valuable of these.
This would probably affect properties worth £1.5m plus with bands within the top 300,000 so those with really expensive properties pay more than those just falling into the top 300,000.
Starts in 2028 and intended to raise £600m. Seems a lot of work to raise £600m but of course once established the scope and levy can be expanded...
Good morning
Council tax is devolved in Scotland and Wales so England only
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
A proposal
1) we just say we are having a public enquiry - a part time unpaid intern generates a million pages of AI slop 2) the conclusion is pre-written. “We are the government. Know your place, shut up and be grateful. Nothing will change”
This will save decades, hundreds of millions and achieve the same result as all the other enquiries.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
The only thing triggering me is the orientation of the chart! Tax rate should be on the x axis and revenue on the y.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
The lessons are never learnt sadly. That statement is rolled out every time by Govt no matter what colour. Sadly I have bitter experience of this as I help one of the campaigns who are going through just this.
Our experience is of a blocking civil service and Govt ministers who have no experience of their brief and change jobs before they do get that experience so invariably spout the civil service line without challenging it. And just to make clear that isn't just an opinion. I have a FOI response of hundreds of responses which demonstrates it. Every single ministerial reply in the FOI is backed up by an analysis from the civil service and a draft reply. There was not a single occasion when the minister asked questions of the analysis or the draft reply and always issued it word for word.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It costs very little, it’s a nice thing that transforms lives, and adds to the happiness of the nation.
A lot of the cuts being proposed on here today are a. unlikely to save much, b. generally targeted at things or types of people the poster doesn’t like while protecting those things the poster does like.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It costs very little, it’s a nice thing that transforms lives, and adds to the happiness of the nation.
A lot of the cuts being proposed on here today are a. unlikely to save much, b. generally targeted at things or types of people the poster doesn’t like while protecting those things the poster does like.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It costs very little, it’s a nice thing that transforms lives, and adds to the happiness of the nation.
A lot of the cuts being proposed on here today are a. unlikely to save much, b. generally targeted at things or types of people the poster doesn’t like while protecting those things the poster does like.
£77 million p.a. for IVF on the NHS.
Exactly, peanuts. For something that brings huge amounts of joy to so many people.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
A proposal
1) we just say we are having a public enquiry - a part time unpaid intern generates a million pages of AI slop 2) the conclusion is pre-written. “We are the government. Know your place, shut up and be grateful. Nothing will change”
This will save decades, hundreds of millions and achieve the same result as all the other enquiries.
It's like the request from Peter Sullivan asking for an apology and explanation of what happened to him in 1986. Well it happened 39 years ago so everything about it will have been lost and everyone involved in stitching him up will have retired (and are probably dead).
It's also so long ago that anything learnt will be irrelevant now - don't beat up prisoners to get a fake confession hasn't been the done thing since about 1995..
I'm not really sure anyone in the UK is advocating the Scandi model. Maybe Greens. We'd need much more trust in government to hand over sufficient money!
Interestingly the Scandi countries do not have much government debt, by some distance the lowest in Europe. They have always believed in paying for their welfare systems from tax not debt. Germany comes close too.
A cynic may notice that it hasn't generated a great deal of growth, even if not a debt crisis.
Switzerland meanwhile has lower taxes than the UK and Scandi nations, lower spending and still well run public services and no debt
The Swiss do also have compulsory private health insurance, so kinda like a tax but not called a tax, which somewhat flatters their tax picture. But, sure, there’s plenty we can learn from Switzerland. Which features would you copy? Close integration into the EU, a focus on high tech industries, or a much higher proportion of immigrants?
I would bring in their requirements for obtaining Swiss nationality:
are integrated into Swiss society; (you have the ability to communicate in a national language in everyday situations, both orally and in writing, article 6 SCO); are accustomed to the Swiss lifestyle and Swiss customs (article 2 SCO); show respect for public security and order (clear criminal record both in Switzerland and abroad, no debt enforcement or insolvency proceedings in the last five years, no wages withheld, all taxes, child maintenance, rent, social charges and fines paid and you have not publicly expressed support for a crime against public order, a genocide, a crime against humanity, etc., article 4 SCO); show respect for the values of the Constitution (fundamental rights, gender equality, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, military service, democracy, principle of compulsory schooling, liability to taxation, etc., article 5 SCO); are contributing to the country’s economy or completing your education (in employment or education, not reliant on welfare benefits, article 7 SCO); do not pose a threat to Switzerland’s internal or external security (terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime, espionage, etc., article 3 SCO); encourage and support the integration of your spouse, your registered partner and your children under 18 for whom you hold parental responsibility (article 8 SCO).
Certain requirements would have made a huge difference to society over the last 50 plus years:
As regards familiarisation with the Swiss lifestyle, the authorities will look particularly closely at whether you have a knowledge of Swiss geography, history, politics (civil rights, political structure, legal system, etc.), society (Swiss traditions, social security, health, education, etc.), and whether you take an active part in the social life and customs of the Swiss population and are in contact with Swiss people (article 2 SCO).
Under article 7 SCO, as an applicant for Swiss nationality you must be capable of supporting yourself and your family (housing, food, taxes, travel, insurance etc.) as far as you can predict, via an income, your wealth or payments such as pensions to which you are entitled. So, in principle, as a candidate for Swiss nationality, you are required to be making an effective and active contribution to the country’s economy. You are expected to be active on a professional level, which means undertaking a job of work producing goods or services in order to earn an income to support yourself and your family.
Some communes are allowed a vote to decide if you pass those tests which isn’t a bad idea either. If you want to become a Swiss national you truly have to buy in to the country you want to be a national of which makes it more palatable for the Swiss to accept outsiders into their country which is absolutely fair.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
*Suggesting* the change will kickoff a cascade of reports throughout government. Because if you don’t raise an objection/issue, as a manager you are saying “I don’t have a purpose”.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
Except where it comes to their own personal activities.
Have we done this? The Institute of Fiscal Studies "Be the Chancellor" game. You too can slash taxes and services - or pad them out to your heart's content.
Seems the solution is to hack away at the Foreign Office or make foreigners pay.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
So we pay for the IVF, then give them handouts because they cant afford to look after their children. Wonderful.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
Fertility treatment is however a postcode lottery based on what your local trust offers. I can see an argument about improving things to match the best authority or reducing things to match the worst, I don't see much value in privatising it as it's probably the most enjoyable part of the job for the people who work in that area..
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
*Suggesting* the change will kickoff a cascade of reports throughout government. Because if you don’t raise an objection/issue, as a manager you are saying “I don’t have a purpose”.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
This is just a change in rates. It’s substantially less invasive to process than the employer’s NI threshold change last year, which triggered lots of justified angst from employers but didn’t spawn rounds of reports.
Generally tax policy doesn’t actually create that much cross government paperwork. It keeps HMT and HMRC busy (and people like me) but tends to be much more self-contained than policy changes in other areas like planning or infrastructure.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It costs very little, it’s a nice thing that transforms lives, and adds to the happiness of the nation.
A lot of the cuts being proposed on here today are a. unlikely to save much, b. generally targeted at things or types of people the poster doesn’t like while protecting those things the poster does like.
Reducing the salaries of every government employee bar the geeky, numerate, IT savvy who we should actually pay much more is surprisingly popular on pb for some very obscure reason.
Actually on the International Men's Day thing, the non playing stuff from the Scotland players last night was a great display of where (a lot of) men are today - McTominay asking where his mum was after scoring, Robertson talking about his mate Jota, celebrating with their wives and kids afterwards. I'd add that you see similar from England players (and those of other teams), Southgate's influence something to do with it I'm sure.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. Had we actually borrowed more to invest (rather than fund current spending), the return on investment over the last decade and a half would with absolute certainty been higher than the annual 0.5% it might have cost, and quite likely more than the current 4.5% or so.
The gov't labels all sorts of spending "investment" when it's just a plain overhead.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Some sensible measures but given our fertility rate is now just 1.45 we need to increase child benefit for the first two children if anything. I would means test not end triple lock and savings already have to be used to pay for social care except the home for at home care which after the dementia tax disaster won't change.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
A small defence of ditching the two-child limit - of all government spending, that on children tends to have the most positive long term impacts on everything from health to crime to the economy.
I don't think there's much evidence that people crack out the spreadsheet when deciding the number of children they will have - particularly those on low incomes where frankly having any children is financially irrational.
What there is plenty of evidence for is that growing up in poverty has long term and sometimes devastating impacts on life outcomes. We don't like to admit it, but the course of most people's lives are predictable to a high degree of accuracy based on their living conditions in early childhood.
I understand the equity argument for limiting benefits for children, particularly when you focus on the parents. But if you don't want to saddle the next generation with these kind of problems then the limit has to go.
There's a deeper problem here where we have benefits spending already much higher than Denmark's, yet a child poverty rate three times as high. We're in a pickle given the structure of our economy and labour market.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It also makes a negligible contribution to our spending. We'd save a quid a year each if we stopped funding it.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
*Suggesting* the change will kickoff a cascade of reports throughout government. Because if you don’t raise an objection/issue, as a manager you are saying “I don’t have a purpose”.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
This is just a change in rates. It’s substantially less invasive to process than the employer’s NI threshold change last year, which triggered lots of justified angst from employers but didn’t spawn rounds of reports.
Generally tax policy doesn’t actually create that much cross government paperwork. It keeps HMT and HMRC busy (and people like me) but tends to be much more self-contained than policy changes in other areas like planning or infrastructure.
Are you seriously suggesting that a policy change of this scale should be undertaken without a fully costed and detailed report of the effect on donkey employment in coal mines?!!
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. Had we actually borrowed more to invest (rather than fund current spending), the return on investment over the last decade and a half would with absolute certainty been higher than the annual 0.5% it might have cost, and quite likely more than the current 4.5% or so.
The gov't labels all sorts of spending "investment" when it's just a plain overhead.
The gov't labels all sorts of cuts "savings" when in reality the lack of investment increases future overhead.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
*Suggesting* the change will kickoff a cascade of reports throughout government. Because if you don’t raise an objection/issue, as a manager you are saying “I don’t have a purpose”.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
This is just a change in rates. It’s substantially less invasive to process than the employer’s NI threshold change last year, which triggered lots of justified angst from employers but didn’t spawn rounds of reports.
Generally tax policy doesn’t actually create that much cross government paperwork. It keeps HMT and HMRC busy (and people like me) but tends to be much more self-contained than policy changes in other areas like planning or infrastructure.
Are you seriously suggesting that a policy change of this scale should be undertaken without a fully costed and detailed report of the effect on donkey employment in coal mines?!!
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It also makes a negligible contribution to our spending. We'd save a quid a year each if we stopped funding it.
This IVF thing is just silly. It represents 0.03% of the health budget.
For anyone suggesting cuts - please point out where they can come from
Seriously the only way to cut things would be to stop doing X, so tell me what things you don't want the public sector to do..
And that’s a pathetic argument
None of us on the board have the data to come up with precise line items.
But there is clearly unnecessary spending.
On what? Seriously on this mornings news it said the time it takes for a shop lifter to be taken to court has doubled.
Now supposedly spending on justice is at a record high, yet courts sit for fewer days than they used to. How does that work?
The coalition government cut a quarter of its lawyers and closed half the courts.
Yep - remember the question was how to cut spending - I'm merely highlighting an area (one of probably many) where previous spending cuts are now creating massive problems....
We have a thread saying cut spending - yet there are a whole set of things were 30 seconds of checks will show you we actually aren't spending enough because the short term savings have been saved and now we are into the longer term consequences of that "saving"
See as another example the insane level of Child Social care that directly corrosponds with the impact of the closure of Surestart's early interventions.
OT. The bbc at it's best 'Anatomy of a Cancellation' introduced by Katie Razzle. On radio 4 this morning. Interestingly the F- word is used several times as is the C-word but a fine example of a grown up programme investigating an interesting case of cancellation and racism.
- Remove winter fuel allowance & other add on benefits. - Child benefit for first child only - End the triple lock - Cut back the number of diversity officers - there are at least 500 in central government according to a recent FoI request and the number has increased since Labour came into power - Prescription charges: reduce the number of exemptions and increase payments - Foreign aid: what actually is it being spent on and which countries - More charges for council services above the bare minimum - Stop or drastically reduce funding of lobby groups - No money in current budget for AD - where is the money for that to come from? If people want it they should pay for it themselves. - Social care - people with savings need to use those first. The rainy day has arrived so that is what the savings are for.
On the tax side - - raise income tax and extend NI ultimately combining the two - add council tax bands at the top end rather than faff around with extra taxes - Extend VAT - we have more exemptions than many other countries - Get rid of cliff edges - Reduce pension tax relief to the basic rate - Freeze thresholds
Once there is a path to a reduced deficit and growth then can think of reducing tax. But I would make the priority proper investment in infrastructure and high quality competent permanent staff rather than endless locums and consultants.
Agree with most of that.
On assisted dying, surely though allowing people to choose a dignified and painless death at the time of their choosing would be a significant saving for the NHS. It must cost millions to prolong the lives of people who don't even want their lives prolonged because it is a life with little quality, constant pain and no hope of improvement. Scarce resources could be far better used in the NHS.
If someone wants to soldier on because of their religious convictions or whatever that should of course be their choice too. Sure let those who can pay for it, I can but will probably end up giving the money to a Swiss clinic rather than the NHS. I say this as someone currently on a palliative chemo course as a last throw of the dice!
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
It also makes a negligible contribution to our spending. We'd save a quid a year each if we stopped funding it.
This IVF thing is just silly. It represents 0.03% of the health budget.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
It exists in some form no doubt but with a lack of data it is meaningless.
One simple question: at what tax percentage is the maximum tax revenue? Beyond 'probably not 0% or 100%', nobody has a scooby doo.
Up to a point. However, I'm pretty sure that the problem are deeper-rooted than that.
It's been a problem going back at least as far as Lawson. Yes, the budget balanced pretty well in the late 80s, but a lot of that was thanks to transient things like privatisation, North Sea and really favourable demographics. It left us assuming that we deserved lower taxes and higher state spending than is sustainable. Something for nothing, which always wins elections, tends to be followed by nothing for something.
Reeves's hokey-cokey on income tax was painful to watch (and shows why Budget purdah is a good thing.) But once an increase wasn't absolutely essential, it became politically impossible.
And as for cutting waste and unnecessary programmes, ask Reform-run councils how that is going.
Problem is I suspect the income tax increase is absolutely essential because leeway is required..
The budget seems to lurch from one crisis to enough having some extra tax revenue makes sense to provide some leeway and some infrastructure investment,
See my argument about councils, best to raise council tax by 10% because that will give the council a few years with some money that can be spent on things beyond social care.
Councils are yet another source of strain on budgets. They have been deprived of sufficient sums to meet their statutory duties for years now and a considerable number of them are facing the equivalent of bankruptcy as they face ever more demands and less income. This is going to come to a crisis point in the next 2 or 3 years and a sensible Chancellor would be making provision for it now. Giving up on the IT rise because the OBR found an extra £10bn down the back of the sofa the Scottish fans came out from behind proclaiming it was never in doubt was pitifully short sighted and means that next week will not give us any stability going forward. Really poor management.
The problem is, with the IT rise, there was already opposition to it within Labour and Lucy Powell has come out against it. Had it gone through it would have been like the proposed slowdown of benefits spending.
Labour MPs would have rebelled and the chancellor folded
There has to come a point where the average Labour back bench MPs grasp of reality is simply not the determining factor in government policy.
Only if Starmer and Reeves rely on Tory MPs votes to get cuts through, in which case he becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
Thing is both recent governments have increased income tax for average earners massively, by freezing thresholds. It’s just not been enough because of our poor GDP performance and demographics.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
Ni/IT - Too many vested interests, too many opportunities to have consultations. Too many millions of pages of bullshit to never be read.
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
The good thing about moving rates as proposed in the IT/NI swap is that it’s the sort of tax reform that can be done with the stroke of a pen. It doesn’t require consultation. And it’s easy to implement in both government and payroll systems.
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
*Suggesting* the change will kickoff a cascade of reports throughout government. Because if you don’t raise an objection/issue, as a manager you are saying “I don’t have a purpose”.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
This is just a change in rates. It’s substantially less invasive to process than the employer’s NI threshold change last year, which triggered lots of justified angst from employers but didn’t spawn rounds of reports.
Generally tax policy doesn’t actually create that much cross government paperwork. It keeps HMT and HMRC busy (and people like me) but tends to be much more self-contained than policy changes in other areas like planning or infrastructure.
Are you seriously suggesting that a policy change of this scale should be undertaken without a fully costed and detailed report of the effect on donkey employment in coal mines?!!
Yep!
Fascism! Communism!
Seriously - you are asking multiple hundred K managers and consultants to just sit there. And not “input”.
Stalin’s time in power teaches us that such people will “input” - even if the result is death or 20 years in Siberia.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
I am all for a balanced budget, but be realistic on public headcount. After 15 years of austerity how much fat is there to cut in our criminal justice system for example? The way to cut costs there is to restrict what is permitted, for example greatly restricting the right to appeal.
Similarly in my line of work (my Trust is reducing headcount this year by 7% already). What treatments on the NHS do we stop?
On your latter point, IVF.
Given our low birthrate certainly not
IVF makes a negligible contribution to overall birthrate.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
You really are a misanthrope.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
So we pay for the IVF, then give them handouts because they cant afford to look after their children. Wonderful.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
That would be stupidly complicated.
Switch the triple lock from State Pension to Pension Credit (it's currently just inflation-linked) would be better and achieve the same result.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
That would be stupidly complicated. Triple lock Pension Credit (it's currently just inflation-linked) would achieve the same result though.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
The single point of that graph is to show that the laffer curve has a whole set of external factors so the best percentage to use today is not going to be the same tomorrow.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
Yes, please post that graph, I'd love to see it (and the underlying data that supports it).
I heard Laffer at the week-end talking about his curve. I somehow expected him to be older if not dead. He was damning of the British economy and suggested British tax rates should be at least halved. He sounded pleasantly bonkers.
Good thread header. This is the real issue facing this government and it is one that the last government largely dodged. I would add that the increasing cost of our debt burden is another very serious challenge going forward. According to the OBR, " in 2025-26 we expect debt interest spending to total £111.2 billion. That would represent 8.3 per cent of total public spending and is equivalent to over 3.7 per cent of national income."
A lot of our current debt was borrowed at ridiculously low interest rates after the GFC. So a 10 year gilt from 2015, for example, might have had a coupon of 0.2%. When that became repayable this year we obviously did not have the money to repay it so the debt will have been rolled over but at a cost of around 4.5%. A lot of people on here criticised Osborne for not borrowing more to invest and claimed this was shortsighted. This shows how wrong they were. That 8.3% is heading in only 1 direction.
So, we urgently need to cut spending. Much easier said than done of course, especially given the pressures mentioned by Gareth and by me. We need to reduce regulatory costs, we need to reduce the head count in the public sector substantially, we need to stop wasting money on never ending inquiries which tell us the same things again and again (and which, as @Cyclefree points out, we normally ignore). Its a huge challenge for any government and politically it is a particular challenge for Labour. But it needs to be done.
The problem is every time there is a scandal a public inquiry is demanded. Which means lots of money for lawyers but also needs to ensure the lessons are learned
A proposal
1) we just say we are having a public enquiry - a part time unpaid intern generates a million pages of AI slop 2) the conclusion is pre-written. “We are the government. Know your place, shut up and be grateful. Nothing will change”
This will save decades, hundreds of millions and achieve the same result as all the other enquiries.
See my post. Very sadly you put it much better and a much cheaper result* than what now happens.
I was going to say 'solution', but realised it was nothing of the sort.
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
I can't remember if I first saw this on here, but this is quite a good representation of the Laffer Curve. It certainly triggers lefties, but if you're in complete denial if you don't think it exists in some form:
A better graph would be tax base (y) against tax rate (x), which would emphasis the elementary logic behind the curve
The single point of that graph is to show that the laffer curve has a whole set of external factors so the best percentage to use today is not going to be the same tomorrow.
The laffer curve seeks to estimate the point at which you maximise government revenue for a particular tax - and is often calculated to be uncomfortably high at around 70% depending on all those external factors
It doesn't take into account economic output and the spillover effect of that activity on other taxes, where you'd probably find a lower percentage (particularly for income tax for high earners who have lower marginal utility from cash, relative to not working).
That's an interesting thread header which makes some excellent points.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too: * PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income. * State Pension - end the triple-lock. * Attendance allowance - means test.
Or means test the triple lock
That would be stupidly complicated.
Switch the triple lock from State Pension to Pension Credit (it's currently just inflation-linked) would be better and achieve the same result.
Pension credits should be stopped.
With auto enrolment of pensions everyone should now be building their own pension pot.
Comments
I am fairly sure originally you didn't get child benefit for the first child, but did get it for subsequent ones. That might be a better model.
I would get rid of free prescriptions completely and charge, say, £2 a pop. You can then get rid of the bit of the DWP that manages it. I believe only 10% of prescriptions are paid for so you'd still make money.
I would certainly remove free prescriptions for the over 60s and maybe move it to state pension age.
As long as we have laws like the Equality Act we need administrators able to implement them.
If you want to get rid of "Diversity Officers" then you need to get rid of the laws around Equalitis and employment rights. It would be a different world if businesses could do what they like about sex segregated or Trans inclusive spaces with no legal comeback either way, and sack people who criticise their policy, but it would no longer need Diversity Officers.
So our deficit should disappear pretty quickly and there will be lots of money left to lavish on the super fit people left behind (there really ought to be a phrase for them).
Oh and anyone who thinks that giving the NHS a financial interest in the death of its expensive patients won't lead to the death of those expensive patients is a naive fool.
Or in my world, anaerobic digestion.
And - as so often needing to be repeated here - HR aren't there for fun/showing off rainbow lanyards. They are there, in part, to protect the organization (and the perpetrators themselves, fi it isn't too late) from the stupidity of managers and employees over the most utterly basic things, like treating staff of 2+ years service as if temporary and dismissable at will.
The government isn't implementing legislation governing discrimination against women. It is failing to do so and in some case actually discriminating against women and then spending a load of money defending claims and losing.
A look at what they are actually doing, whether what they are doing is lawful and effective is well overdue, frankly.
I have to laugh, though, at dropping in the Laffer curve as if it is undeniable gospel and has anything useful to say. Where's the data behind that (or any) Laffer curve?
I remain of the opinion that we should raise taxes on people like me who are fortunate enough to be in the top quartile of income and/or wealth. We should also ensure ALL income if taxed under the same tax regime (e.g roll NI into income tax). We should have a UK FATCA for expats, and a surcharge property tax on UK real estate owned by non-UK citizens and companies.
That said, I would cut spending in some areas too:
* PIP and other disability benefits - tighten the criteria and treat as taxable income.
* State Pension - end the triple-lock.
* Attendance allowance - means test.
Ukraine is still #1
@LukeTryl
Tiny changes as Reform lead by 10 in today’s voting intention. Labour & Tories tie on 20%. After a series of rises Greens drop 1 to 11%
➡️ REF UK 30% (-1)
🌹 LAB 20% (-)
🌳 CON 20% (+1)
🔶 LIB DEM 14% (nc)
🌍 GREEN 11% (-1)
🟡 SNP 3% (+1)
N = 2,062 | 14 - 17/11 | Change w 10/11"
https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1991070524663804354
(Oh and another word for "trans inclusive spaces" is mixed sex. We've had them for years.)
I think it's time for the backlash against the backlash against woke.
So what Reeves will do is likely increase tax on expensive homes, increase capital gains tax and freeze income tax rates which at a time of rising unemployment and sluggish growth will just mainly depress the economy further. Howe and Osborne at least had significant spending cuts alongside some tax rises and even Healey had some spending cuts alongside significant tax rises when previous chancellors tried to balance the deficit
Or it could be rounding.
Instead, use the overseas aid budget to send UK trainee doctors to other countries to complete their training. The counties in question get money and trainee doctors to help. We get trained doctors back…
They’ve been in power for 16 months. A quarter of this parliament.
No one doubts they inherited a shit sandwich. But they’re in charge now. Just constantly blaming the last lot for their ability to do fuck all won’t cut it. It’s as tedious as the Tories dragging up Liam Byrne’s jocular note.
A segment from historian Heather Cox-Richardson suggesting that the Epstein-related evidence is so widespread, and the footprints will be so extensive, that erasing it all will be impossible.
We have already seen how much continues to exist in the Epstein estate, and in the records of someone around Ghislaine Maxwell, who released the birthday diary to the media. Perhaps they all (especially Maxwell) kept copies of everything that they could get access to ... thick as thieves etc.
https://youtu.be/ESDFH9KRzdE?t=762
on Tory MPs votes to get cuts
through, in which case he
becomes Ramsay MacStarmer.
No party is committed to increasing income tax for average earners, though Reeves would have Labour and Green and SNP and Plaid and maybe even LD support for increasing additional and higher rate income tax rates
LLG 45 RefCon 50 on this one, which is at the higher end of recent polls for RefCon.
Or are you suggesting that different oldies get different increases in the state pension each year ?
Which would be complex, save sod all money and be another disincentive to work.
I don’t know why she’s stepped back from the NI/IT swap plan. An economically sensible idea that should boost productivity, all things being equal, and reduce distortions while putting public finances on a more secure footing.
On tax it is likely Reeves will increase higher council tax bands and freeze thresholds and reduce pension relief anyway. I would ringfence national insurance for JSA, the state pension and some social care not merge it with income tax
I'd also get rid of Moral Maze and thin out the media programmes
This would probably affect properties worth £1.5m plus with bands within the top 300,000 so those with really expensive properties pay more than those just falling into the top 300,000.
Starts in 2028 and intended to raise £600m. Seems a lot of work to raise £600m but of course once established the scope and levy can be expanded...
This is a Process State government - the process must be worshipped.
Council tax is devolved in Scotland and Wales so England only
This is Wales proposals
https://www.gov.wales/find-out-about-how-we-are-reforming-council-tax
A lot of the tinkering Reeves seems to be planning, including broadening the base of NI, does require consultation and fairly complex implementation.
If people want to use IVF, fair enough, but not funded by the taxpayer.
1) we just say we are having a public enquiry - a part time unpaid intern generates a million pages of AI slop
2) the conclusion is pre-written. “We are the government. Know your place, shut up and be grateful. Nothing will change”
This will save decades, hundreds of millions and achieve the same result as all the other enquiries.
Our experience is of a blocking civil service and Govt ministers who have no experience of their brief and change jobs before they do get that experience so invariably spout the civil service line without challenging it. And just to make clear that isn't just an opinion. I have a FOI response of hundreds of responses which demonstrates it. Every single ministerial reply in the FOI is backed up by an analysis from the civil service and a draft reply. There was not a single occasion when the minister asked questions of the analysis or the draft reply and always issued it word for word.
A lot of the cuts being proposed on here today are a. unlikely to save much, b. generally targeted at things or types of people the poster doesn’t like while protecting those things the poster does like.
Poor people as well as rich people struggle to conceive children.
Why deny the poor the joy of being a parent.
It's also so long ago that anything learnt will be irrelevant now - don't beat up prisoners to get a fake confession hasn't been the done thing since about 1995..
are integrated into Swiss society; (you have the ability to communicate in a national language in everyday situations, both orally and in writing, article 6 SCO);
are accustomed to the Swiss lifestyle and Swiss customs (article 2 SCO);
show respect for public security and order (clear criminal record both in Switzerland and abroad, no debt enforcement or insolvency proceedings in the last five years, no wages withheld, all taxes, child maintenance, rent, social charges and fines paid and you have not publicly expressed support for a crime against public order, a genocide, a crime against humanity, etc., article 4 SCO);
show respect for the values of the Constitution (fundamental rights, gender equality, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, military service, democracy, principle of compulsory schooling, liability to taxation, etc., article 5 SCO);
are contributing to the country’s economy or completing your education (in employment or education, not reliant on welfare benefits, article 7 SCO);
do not pose a threat to Switzerland’s internal or external security (terrorism, violent extremism, organised crime, espionage, etc., article 3 SCO);
encourage and support the integration of your spouse, your registered partner and your children under 18 for whom you hold parental responsibility (article 8 SCO).
Certain requirements would have made a huge difference to society over the last 50 plus years:
As regards familiarisation with the Swiss lifestyle, the authorities will look particularly closely at whether you have a knowledge of Swiss geography, history, politics (civil rights, political structure, legal system, etc.), society (Swiss traditions, social security, health, education, etc.), and whether you take an active part in the social life and customs of the Swiss population and are in contact with Swiss people (article 2 SCO).
Under article 7 SCO, as an applicant for Swiss nationality you must be capable of supporting yourself and your family (housing, food, taxes, travel, insurance etc.) as far as you can predict, via an income, your wealth or payments such as pensions to which you are entitled. So, in principle, as a candidate for Swiss nationality, you are required to be making an effective and active contribution to the country’s economy. You are expected to be active on a professional level, which means undertaking a job of work producing goods or services in order to earn an income to support yourself and your family.
Some communes are allowed a vote to decide if you pass those tests which isn’t a bad idea either. If you want to become a Swiss national you truly have to buy in to the country you want to be a national of which makes it more palatable for the Swiss to accept outsiders into their country which is absolutely fair.
I would guess, at minimum, a million pages.
Then the objections will spawn another round of reports. And so on.
As Chancellor, I personally would mandate that the change happened before lunch that day. But that would be brave.
Seems the solution is to hack away at the Foreign Office or make foreigners pay.
https://ifs.org.uk/be-chancellor#top
Generally tax policy doesn’t actually create that much cross government paperwork. It keeps HMT and HMRC busy (and people like me) but tends to be much more self-contained than policy changes in other areas like planning or infrastructure.
I don't think there's much evidence that people crack out the spreadsheet when deciding the number of children they will have - particularly those on low incomes where frankly having any children is financially irrational.
What there is plenty of evidence for is that growing up in poverty has long term and sometimes devastating impacts on life outcomes. We don't like to admit it, but the course of most people's lives are predictable to a high degree of accuracy based on their living conditions in early childhood.
I understand the equity argument for limiting benefits for children, particularly when you focus on the parents. But if you don't want to saddle the next generation with these kind of problems then the limit has to go.
There's a deeper problem here where we have benefits spending already much higher than Denmark's, yet a child poverty rate three times as high. We're in a pickle given the structure of our economy and labour market.
Maybe we should have a look at obesity instead?
We have a thread saying cut spending - yet there are a whole set of things were 30 seconds of checks will show you we actually aren't spending enough because the short term savings have been saved and now we are into the longer term consequences of that "saving"
See as another example the insane level of Child Social care that directly corrosponds with the impact of the closure of Surestart's early interventions.
https://x.com/mattforde/status/1991088578089070723?s=20
NB. I only listened to this morning's episode
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002m0bm
On assisted dying, surely though allowing people to choose a dignified and painless death at the time of their choosing would be a significant saving for the NHS. It must cost millions to prolong the lives of people who don't even want their lives prolonged because it is a life with little quality, constant pain and no hope of improvement. Scarce resources could be far better used in the NHS.
If someone wants to soldier on because of their religious convictions or whatever that should of course be their choice too. Sure let those who can pay for it, I can but will probably end up giving the money to a Swiss clinic rather than the NHS. I say this as someone currently on a palliative chemo course as a last throw of the dice!
One simple question: at what tax percentage is the maximum tax revenue? Beyond 'probably not 0% or 100%', nobody has a scooby doo.
Seriously - you are asking multiple hundred K managers and consultants to just sit there. And not “input”.
Stalin’s time in power teaches us that such people will “input” - even if the result is death or 20 years in Siberia.
Switch the triple lock from State Pension to Pension Credit (it's currently just inflation-linked) would be better and achieve the same result.
I was going to say 'solution', but realised it was nothing of the sort.
cominghere. Sleet on the South Coast.It doesn't take into account economic output and the spillover effect of that activity on other taxes, where you'd probably find a lower percentage (particularly for income tax for high earners who have lower marginal utility from cash, relative to not working).
With auto enrolment of pensions everyone should now be building their own pension pot.