Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Where’s the strapline, Rishi? – politicalbetting.com

2456

Comments

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    No. Labour's line should be to pay off debt using economic growth not austerity, and take every opportunity to remind people of the squillions of Brexit dividend promised by Conservatives.
    Noone believes snake oil salesmen any more...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    No. Labour's line should be to pay off debt using economic growth not austerity, and take every opportunity to remind people of the squillions of Brexit dividend promised by Conservatives.
    Noone believes snake oil salesmen any more...
    Are you talking about Johnson or Hancock?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    I take that as a compliment, from you. Just to say I'm not aware that I said pensioners should pay more tax than people who are working.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,934

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    No. Labour's line should be to pay off debt using economic growth not austerity, and take every opportunity to remind people of the squillions of Brexit dividend promised by Conservatives.
    Noone believes snake oil salesmen any more...
    In a way, that's the point. It reinforces another point Labour should be making which is Boris's somewhat tenuous relationship with the truth.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    DavidL said:

    I do think that this budget should have been used to end the triple lock once and for all. It was never a good policy but it is now deeply immoral as well as unaffordable. This is really David's point: there was no clear narrative or overriding objective. If your position is that the government has no more money (which is fair enough) spending more of it on pensioners whilst cutting the real wages of those in work as well as taxing them more is just wrong.

    I said many months ago that the triple lock had to end. The massive efforts made to beat the Covid virus have very largely been to protect those in the age group benefitting from the triple lock. It is only fair that they make a significant contribution to getting us out of the financial hole that has caused. And Rishi could have got away with now - because it is equitable.

    Once the economy starts coming back to life, it make it more difficult to make that case, politically. Meanwhile the Himalayan range of debt still sits there. Rishi needed to be braver.
    The triple lock is almost irrelevant. As I said earlier, it means single pensioners are four pounds a week better off than they would have been under the old arrangements. £4.
    That irrelevance may be tested if we are about to have some inflation over 3%. If you are going to amend the triple lock, the time to do it is now, for the very point you make.
    I am struggling to make up my mind what I will spend my £2.50 ( after tax ) on.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    edited March 2021

    DavidL said:

    I do think that this budget should have been used to end the triple lock once and for all. It was never a good policy but it is now deeply immoral as well as unaffordable. This is really David's point: there was no clear narrative or overriding objective. If your position is that the government has no more money (which is fair enough) spending more of it on pensioners whilst cutting the real wages of those in work as well as taxing them more is just wrong.

    I said many months ago that the triple lock had to end. The massive efforts made to beat the Covid virus have very largely been to protect those in the age group benefitting from the triple lock. It is only fair that they make a significant contribution to getting us out of the financial hole that has caused. And Rishi could have got away with now - because it is equitable.

    Once the economy starts coming back to life, it make it more difficult to make that case, politically. Meanwhile the Himalayan range of debt still sits there. Rishi needed to be braver.
    The triple lock is almost irrelevant. As I said earlier, it means single pensioners are four pounds a week better off than they would have been under the old arrangements. £4.
    Not when it comes to forward projections of government spending, which compound a very low assumed inflation rate many years forward whilst also compounding the 2.5% pensions uplift, against a background where actual inflation is barely above zero and so is actual earnings growth.

    Pensioners as a cohort now have an average net income (after housing costs) higher than those actually working, which is staggering.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Some people seem very convinced that the public finances won't recover quickly. I'm unsure why that is the expectation at the moment.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    I take that as a compliment, from you. Just to say I'm not aware that I said pensioners should pay more tax than people who are working.
    Apart from NI they pay tax exactly the same at the moment , so I cannot see where you think you can raise their taxes and not have them paying more than workers.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that this budget should have been used to end the triple lock once and for all. It was never a good policy but it is now deeply immoral as well as unaffordable. This is really David's point: there was no clear narrative or overriding objective. If your position is that the government has no more money (which is fair enough) spending more of it on pensioners whilst cutting the real wages of those in work as well as taxing them more is just wrong.

    I said many months ago that the triple lock had to end. The massive efforts made to beat the Covid virus have very largely been to protect those in the age group benefitting from the triple lock. It is only fair that they make a significant contribution to getting us out of the financial hole that has caused. And Rishi could have got away with now - because it is equitable.

    Once the economy starts coming back to life, it make it more difficult to make that case, politically. Meanwhile the Himalayan range of debt still sits there. Rishi needed to be braver.
    The triple lock is almost irrelevant. As I said earlier, it means single pensioners are four pounds a week better off than they would have been under the old arrangements. £4.
    That irrelevance may be tested if we are about to have some inflation over 3%. If you are going to amend the triple lock, the time to do it is now, for the very point you make.
    I am struggling to make up my mind what I will spend my £2.50 ( after tax ) on.
    Try turnips..they are full of goodness.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that this budget should have been used to end the triple lock once and for all. It was never a good policy but it is now deeply immoral as well as unaffordable. This is really David's point: there was no clear narrative or overriding objective. If your position is that the government has no more money (which is fair enough) spending more of it on pensioners whilst cutting the real wages of those in work as well as taxing them more is just wrong.

    I said many months ago that the triple lock had to end. The massive efforts made to beat the Covid virus have very largely been to protect those in the age group benefitting from the triple lock. It is only fair that they make a significant contribution to getting us out of the financial hole that has caused. And Rishi could have got away with now - because it is equitable.

    Once the economy starts coming back to life, it make it more difficult to make that case, politically. Meanwhile the Himalayan range of debt still sits there. Rishi needed to be braver.
    The triple lock is almost irrelevant. As I said earlier, it means single pensioners are four pounds a week better off than they would have been under the old arrangements. £4.
    That irrelevance may be tested if we are about to have some inflation over 3%. If you are going to amend the triple lock, the time to do it is now, for the very point you make.
    I am struggling to make up my mind what I will spend my £2.50 ( after tax ) on.
    Try turnips..they are full of goodness.
    I have them already, trying to think of something new. Impossible to find organic turnips mind you.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    Obviously I've a dog in the fight over the treatment of pensioners, but I agree that the triple lock has had it's day and should go. I'm inclined to agree that pensioners who continue to work should pay NHI too; AFAIK it doesn't just fund pensions.

    What really worries Mrs C and myself is the cost, availability and condition of continuing care, should we reach the state of needing it. By condition I mean we cannot see how a half hour visit two or three times a day, by someone on, effectively, less than minimum wage (because of travelling time) can reasonably be described as 'care'.
    I can't see me ever voting Conservative, and I didn't trust Mrs May, but the thought of a root and branch review of 'Care' was something we both found attractive., although it would probably neither report nor be enacted by the time we needed it!
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    No. Labour's line should be to pay off debt using economic growth not austerity, and take every opportunity to remind people of the squillions of Brexit dividend promised by Conservatives.
    See I like the sound of that, but I don't think I have ever heard any politician make a convincing case for how "pay off debt using economic growth not austerity" can be achieved in practice. It's one of those things we all want but nobody knows what knobs to turn or buttons to press to make it happen on demand, that it happens at all seems to be despite government rather than due to things governments do. If balancing the books was as simple as "grow the economy" that's all we would ever choose to do, any time we need to reduce debt or increase spending we'd simply grow the economy a bit more to make up the difference. I wish the world worked that way, but I see little evidence it does, so when people propose "grow the economy" as a fix I take it with a pinch of salt.

    Any party that could convince me that they could grow the economy on demand, without blowing everything up a few years later, would get my vote.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    edited March 2021
    The misery of Ahmedabad is over. India win by an innings and 25. At least Dan L top-scored with 50.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Technical point, most pension contributions have not been taxed.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    Foxy said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Yes, I could go along with that. NI for pensioners (or rolling it into Income tax) would be a good start. Not least now that retirement is not compulsory, many pensioners are continuing working*.

    *Incidentally a great example of Ed Davey policy making in the coalition.
    I would be quite interested to see other examples of Ed Davey coalition policies. The only other one I have him down for is the Energy Efficiency Escalator in the PRS.

    Are there others?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    edited March 2021
    Jonathan said:

    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Technical point, most pension contributions have not been taxed.
    We were talking about state pension though. On other pensions you pay tax when you get it though so you don't ever escape paying tax. You still get the same tax code as a pensioner.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Why should they pay less Malcolm? The NI exemption is so long past its sell by date and it is just wrong that dividend income is taxed less than earned income, especially as it is easy enough for those of more substantial means to convert one into the other.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    I take that as a compliment, from you. Just to say I'm not aware that I said pensioners should pay more tax than people who are working.
    Apart from NI they pay tax exactly the same at the moment , so I cannot see where you think you can raise their taxes and not have them paying more than workers.
    Apart from NI is a very large benefit of being old
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    malcolmg said:

    Jonathan said:

    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Technical point, most pension contributions have not been taxed.
    We were talking about state pension though. On other pensions you pay tax when you get it though so you don't ever escape paying tax. You still get the same tax code as a pensioner.
    Both state and private pension income is taxable income.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073
    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Why should they not pay NI? After all they are getting the benefit of the NI.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    Ha! I don't think Labourites have yet grasped the magnitude of the blow that Rishi has struck them. By cutting Corp Tax so low, Cameron and Osborne actually left a large reservoir of additional income for any government willing to raise it back to a moderate level - 'In case of emergency, break tax', if you will.

    Big corporation tax rises had been Labour's secret weapon in what passed for funding Corbyn's economic policy. In 2017 - the Corbyn miracle - Labour went into it promising to make corporations pay more tax while sparing individuals, whereas May promised to raid their homes. The result was obvious to anyone who knows what bits of finance the average voter actually cares about.

    But now Rishi has tapped the last easily-accessible vein of gold left by Cameron-Osborne. If he now avoids putting further major burdens on individuals for the rest of this parliament, then the dividing line for the next election is clear: if Labour wants to promise additional spending or deficit reduction, they have to go after the assets of individuals, whereas the Tories have already chosen to make business share the cost in order to avoid that electorally-toxic outcome.

    The Budget was rated as the fairest in decades, and 58% of Corbyn's own voters trust Rishi with the economy. He's just tipped the board decisively in the Tories' favour - a masterstroke of strategic positioning that the header sadly ignores.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Why should pensioners pay any more tax than people who are working, they have paid it for up to 50 years and therefore earned what little they have.
    I have read some bollox on here but that drivel takes the biscuit.
    Why should they not pay NI? After all they are getting the benefit of the NI.
    I worked part time between 65 and 70. If anything had happened to me, I'd still have needed the NHS etc. I was glad that I didn't have to pay it, of course, but that's not the point.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    That means they want about 4-5%.

    If they asked for that straight out, however, they would get 1.2%.

    Similarly, I suspect the government will be willing to bend on this, but they want to be able to blame nurses and their representatives for pushing up the bill. ‘Well, don’t blame us for the fact there’s no money left. We tried to keep it under control but those people stopped us.’

    It’s all rather childish but it suits both sides so doubtless they will continue posturing for some time yet.
    The government's approach is always to take the money from elsewhere in the NHS. So with staff being about 70% of NHS costs, a bigger payrise means vacancy freezes elsewhere. I have seen it all before.

    The NHS is effectively a monopoly employer. Market forces work only by voting with your feet. I have been headhunted for NZ again this week, if I were 10 years younger you wouldn't see me for dust.
    Know how you feel Foxy, as it’s much the same in education, given the huge control the DfE have even over private schools.

    It’s also why I’m pondering options to get out. This just isn’t worth the hassle to be bossed about by crooks at the DfE and abused by the likes of Roger and Topping.
    What about a career in politics?

    With the onwards and upwards march of the Johnsonian Conservatives there must be opportunities, particularly in the West Midlands.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    Some parts of the private sector have done and are doing well. Very well. This is a very different situation to what we'd be used to experience with a normal recession where GDP had declined by less than half as much.

    My employer cancelled a pay increase last spring because the uncertainty was too high, but this year we've been told to expect an increase which will catch us up. There will be lots of parts of the private sector that are the same, despite the pandemic and Brexit.

    When the vaccination program completes, restrictions are lifted, and the confidence to stumble blinking back outside returns, I think there's good reason to expect a very rapid recovery in the economy and the public finances.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    The public haven’t clocked yet that this means continued stagnant net incomes and austerity to public services already on their knees (look at local government).

    Who has been protected?

    Amazon and big tech - still extracting rent from the economy and paying no tax.
    Tory donors - ie mates of Jenrick, Hancock, or Carrie.
    Wealthy pensioners.

    House owners have also been given a bung via continued support for house prices (perhaps understandable as OBR had been predicting a steep fall).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073
    edited March 2021
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    I think Labour needs a more imaginative solution than just getting rid of the triple lock. The state pension on its own is very modest, and somewhere between a third and a quarter of all pensioners live on it alone. How many on here could live on c. £9000 a year? These pensioners (largely women, I suspect) are the least likely to have other assets (including property). So Labour should seek to continue to increase the state pension in order to protect those (probably a diminishing number) who have no other source of income.

    The more radical solution, therefore, is to find ways of increasing revenue from the two thirds of pensioners who can afford to pay more, rather than the quarter/third for whom the triple lock has slightly improved things. A combination of taxation and NI measures could achieve this, or some form of wealth/property/land value tax. So I'm agreeing that the 'pensioner bill' needs to be reduced, but this should be done in a way that improves the lot of the poorest pensioners rather than making them even worse off.
    Yes, I could go along with that. NI for pensioners (or rolling it into Income tax) would be a good start. Not least now that retirement is not compulsory, many pensioners are continuing working*.

    *Incidentally a great example of Ed Davey policy making in the coalition.
    I would be quite interested to see other examples of Ed Davey coalition policies. The only other one I have him down for is the Energy Efficiency Escalator in the PRS.

    Are there others?
    He was ahead of his time on renewable energy development and we reap the benefits of that now.

    Also very cunning on fracking. He couldn't ban it as the Tories wouldn't wear that, so he permitted it, but under such tight and restrictive rules that it was effectively banned.

    He would be a great PM. He is also a far better and more empathetic communicator than Starmer too. He won't get the job, obviously.

    He would also have had a much better strategy in 2018-9 than Swinson too. I am glad to have voted for him in both Leadership contests.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    edited March 2021
    It isn't Rishi who needs a strap line, it's Labour. The Tories have got themselves in a situation where they can, relatively. do no wrong with enough voters for now. Someone has to come and beat them. Labour are the only candidate to do so, a fact now tested to destruction over 40 years.

    To do so Labour need a renewal as large as the Blair one. The problems as they stand now are:

    The more they can only be in power with SNP support the more the English vote will drift to other parties.

    The more they engage the left membership, the fewer centrists will risk them in power.

    They can talk a Brexit and patriotic language but enough people don't trust their real convictions.

    Until their membership realise that people you have labelled 'scum' (all Tory voters) won't vote for them they have no chance.

    And worst of all, they have nothing in policy terms to stand against a one nation Tory government spending money like water.

    An essential in this is a leader who is a weather maker and a genius. Until Labour realise that is what Boris is already, and that imitation is sincere flattery they are not a good betting prospect. SKS is not the one. I am truly sad that this is the case because he is good and excellent in so many ways.

    They would also need a lot of luck and events going their way.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    OAPs are a large, ever-expanding, segment of the population, that also votes more consistently than all the others. Labour wouldn't dare get rid of the triple lock.

    If Labour wants to win another election then it's going to have to demonstrate that it can give pensioners a better blow job than the Tories. Free personal care a la Scotland, restoring the free TV licence handout, ramping up Winter fuel payments, and shifting more (or even all) of the burden of paying for residential care from individuals to the general taxpayer. Do that and formulate a halfway plausible mechanism to pay for it (perhaps another 5% hike in Corporation Tax, shove the higher and additional rates of income tax up by 5p each, I've not done the maths but you get the general idea) and bingo - watch the arthritic troughers hobble over to your side.

    In crude terms, get about 2,500 olds in every constituency to switch Con-to-Lab and that's the Government's majority erased and Starmer into No.10. Why wouldn't they at least try?
    How do you know that a further 5% hike in Corp Tax will increase revenue? This imo tends to be a delusion of the left.

    I'm concerned that Rishi may already have made the Golden Goose plan to exit stage left, but we will see.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    On the subject of the budget I thought it very much a do very little budget. With the exception of CT change which isn't till 2023 and the investment change there didn't seem a lot of tinkering.

    On the whole I think of it as a wait and see budget. I personally think this wise as we emerge from covid which is very much an outlier event and really no one knows for sure what happens next.

    For example will we return to normal or will a third of the country be working from home for evermore. What will happen to commuting patterns? office space requirements? High sts? To name but a few.

    To set plans in motion now which run a significant risk of colliding with an unpredictable future would be rash. On the whole I think better to wait till next year when we have a better idea of how the world looks before bold initiatives are spun.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    Tax is de facto lower when you're over 65 though
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
    Its interesting how wide the consensus is on this. It smacks of.....missed opportunity.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    How could anyone justify taxing by age, it is just impossible.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,934

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited March 2021

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    The problem here is the media narrative would be Tories give you free stuff, Labour just take away your hard earned. It's a difficult conundrum to beat.
    It's difficult for Labour because they don't know what the Tory theme will be. But whatever it is, I think Labour should be positioning to the fiscal left of it. This sounds obvious but it's less so in these days of cross dressing economic populism.

    But first of all, mirror the Tories on "sound money". If the Tories are abandoning that principle, Labour should too. It would be an electoral own goal to embrace hairshirt voluntarily. And if the Tories are sticking to it, to sound money, Labour should too, and to the same extent. Goal is to remove that "Labour equals feckless deficits, Tories are the grown ups" talking point.

    Then within that framework Labour should be offering higher spending and higher tax to fund it, compared with the Tories. And make a virtue of this. Make sure the spending is on wildly popular things, and the tax is hitting the better off, personal and corporate, hard. I think the time is right for this. I know there's a danger, "Labour's tax bombshell bla bla" but I think it's a risk worth taking.

    TLDR: Fight right populism with left populism.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    malcolmg said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    How could anyone justify taxing by age, it is just impossible.
    It happens at the moment !
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.

    Inflation died in 2008. I am not quite sure what of but ever since governments and central banks have been struggling to meet the underside of their targets despite deficits, QE etc. Its curious but we may have to keep a weather eye on deflation every bit as much as inflation as the economy wallows with recovered capacity but limited spending power.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    The problem here is the media narrative would be Tories give you free stuff, Labour just take away your hard earned. It's a difficult conundrum to beat.
    It's difficult for Labour because they don't know what the Tory theme will be. But whatever it is, I think Labour should be positioning to the fiscal left of it. This sounds obvious but it's less so in these days of cross dressing economic populism.

    But first of all, mirror the Tories on "sound money". If the Tories are abandoning that principle, Labour should too. It would be an electoral own goal to embrace hairshirt voluntarily. And if the Tories are sticking to it, to sound money, Labour should too, and to the same extent. Goal is to remove that "Labour equals feckless deficits, Tories are the grown ups" talking point.

    Then within that framework Labour should be offering higher spending and higher tax to fund it, compared with the Tories. And make a virtue of this. Make sure the spending is on wildly popular things, and the tax is hitting the better off, personal and corporate, hard. I think the time is right for this. I know there's a danger, "Labour's tax bombshell bla bla" but I think it's a risk worth taking.

    TLDR: Fight right populism with left populism.
    Yes, please do - promise higher taxes and spending than an already high-taxing and high-spending Conservative government. Walk into my parlour...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    An opposition leader without a cause can sound pretty hollow. It's not rocket science. Every advertiser faced with a product to sell uses the same techniques. Look for USPs. Get yourself noticed. Be original be creative. Look what your competitors are doing......No one needs an ideology just get an identity and give people a good feeling about what you're offering. Spend £88 a quarter on 'Campaign'. Some great ideas around and get stealing.....

    Difficult to use advertising to make people buy stuff that's crap. Ask Ratner
    Ratner had a very successful business* even though some of his products were crap. Indeed there is a thriving trade in crap across many sectors, especially in politics.

    The key though is to keep the truth veiled. Ratners error was to tell the truth.

    *indeed Mrs Foxys engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting Broadway.
    Never buy retail.. go to an auction.
    Yeah, but we were young, in love and fairly skint!
    .. all the more reasonable to go to an auction 3 x better at least for the same money .. the dealers make a fortune on jewellery.. but you can beat them at an auction. I bought a lovely ring for my now wife.. ok I was in my late in my 50s and a widower and what I paid was about a quarter of what I would have paid in a shop..
    Genuine question from someone who's never been to an auction -- how do you know when to stop bidding and not end up paying above the retail price?
    You decide what it is worth to you, and stop then.

    Bearing in mind that there will be VAT and Auctioneer's premium (prob as much again) on the hammer price.

    You know what you lose by comparison with a new thing.

    eg I have sometimes bought bath fittings for refurbs at auction. I lose the guarantee and the right to take it back if faulty.

    I also know that for nearly everything in refurb getting 1/3 off the normal price is a piece of pie.

    So I would not go much above 20-22% of the new price at the hammer.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
    You might think it a false dichotomy. But Labour always runs to help the public sector. It is an ever shrinking pool of voters and it pisses off an ever greater pool of voters.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
    Its interesting how wide the consensus is on this. It smacks of.....missed opportunity.
    If he wants to lose an election he will. Its political suicide...
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    MattW said:

    I think the triple lock is ridiculous but I also think the Tories are trapped by their voting coalition; they tried to reform it in GE2017 and lost their majority.

    I think they should be brave and do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but I doubt they'll risk it.

    Getting rid of it is one positive a Labour Government might be able to deliver.

    OAPs are a large, ever-expanding, segment of the population, that also votes more consistently than all the others. Labour wouldn't dare get rid of the triple lock.

    If Labour wants to win another election then it's going to have to demonstrate that it can give pensioners a better blow job than the Tories. Free personal care a la Scotland, restoring the free TV licence handout, ramping up Winter fuel payments, and shifting more (or even all) of the burden of paying for residential care from individuals to the general taxpayer. Do that and formulate a halfway plausible mechanism to pay for it (perhaps another 5% hike in Corporation Tax, shove the higher and additional rates of income tax up by 5p each, I've not done the maths but you get the general idea) and bingo - watch the arthritic troughers hobble over to your side.

    In crude terms, get about 2,500 olds in every constituency to switch Con-to-Lab and that's the Government's majority erased and Starmer into No.10. Why wouldn't they at least try?
    How do you know that a further 5% hike in Corp Tax will increase revenue? This imo tends to be a delusion of the left.

    I'm concerned that Rishi may already have made the Golden Goose plan to exit stage left, but we will see.
    I don't. That's not the point. All I was suggesting is that Labour might find that its electoral prospects improve dramatically if it promises to stuff pensioners' mouths with gold, but that in order to do this it needs a plausible sounding funding mechanism. Shoving up taxes on big business and well-to-do workers might not have the intended effect, but it sounds plausible enough.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Pulpstar said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    Tax is de facto lower when you're over 65 though
    can you show which taxes are lower. I am not aware of any and NI is NOT a tax as defined.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Pulpstar said:

    malcolmg said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    How could anyone justify taxing by age, it is just impossible.
    It happens at the moment !
    Do you have examples, genuine question.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited March 2021
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    Tax is de facto lower when you're over 65 though
    can you show which taxes are lower. I am not aware of any and NI is NOT a tax as defined.
    Of course it's a tax. It's deducted at source off my pay, same as tax. I haven't performed any previous action to invoke it so the arguments about student debt being in reality a tax don't even apply to it.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Pulpstar said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    Tax is de facto lower when you're over 65 though
    can you show which taxes are lower. I am not aware of any and NI is NOT a tax as defined.
    Of course it's a tax.
    So you are basing it all on NI.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
    Classic Tory divide and rule tactic. Set private sector workers against public sector workers. We see the same with debate on pensions.
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 403
    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    An opposition leader without a cause can sound pretty hollow. It's not rocket science. Every advertiser faced with a product to sell uses the same techniques. Look for USPs. Get yourself noticed. Be original be creative. Look what your competitors are doing......No one needs an ideology just get an identity and give people a good feeling about what you're offering. Spend £88 a quarter on 'Campaign'. Some great ideas around and get stealing.....

    Difficult to use advertising to make people buy stuff that's crap. Ask Ratner
    Ratner had a very successful business* even though some of his products were crap. Indeed there is a thriving trade in crap across many sectors, especially in politics.

    The key though is to keep the truth veiled. Ratners error was to tell the truth.

    *indeed Mrs Foxys engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting Broadway.
    Never buy retail.. go to an auction.
    Yeah, but we were young, in love and fairly skint!
    .. all the more reasonable to go to an auction 3 x better at least for the same money .. the dealers make a fortune on jewellery.. but you can beat them at an auction. I bought a lovely ring for my now wife.. ok I was in my late in my 50s and a widower and what I paid was about a quarter of what I would have paid in a shop..
    Genuine question from someone who's never been to an auction -- how do you know when to stop bidding and not end up paying above the retail price?
    You decide what it is worth to you, and stop then.

    Bearing in mind that there will be VAT and Auctioneer's premium (prob as much again) on the hammer price.

    You know what you lose by comparison with a new thing.

    eg I have sometimes bought bath fittings for refurbs at auction. I lose the guarantee and the right to take it back if faulty.

    I also know that for nearly everything in refurb getting 1/3 off the normal price is a piece of pie.

    So I would not go much above 20-22% of the new price at the hammer.
    Many years ago, when I was running a small retail business and needed some new fittings I went to an auction. A small supermarket had closed and their fittings were being auctioned off.
    The auctioneer announced before the sale that there were no 'reserves'.
    One particular item caught my eye; it would practically double my shelf space and give customers better access for self selection.
    When it came up I bid £2 and no-one else wanted it. The auctioneer announced that it was ridiculous to sell this for £2.
    At that there was almost a riot and the other potential bidders announced that if my bid wasn't accepted they'd all walk out.
    So the auctioneer gave way and I got my shelving unit.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited March 2021
    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
    Classic Tory divide and rule tactic. Set private sector workers against public sector workers. We see the same with debate on pensions.
    He's right, though. Non-professional private sector have done far worse than Public Sector.

    And those are key target voters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
    No, I think @Northern_Al is right. It is the poorest pensioners that need to be protected, and the richer pensioners who need to contribute more. That will include me of course.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    Question:

    Did Rishi actually change anything for students in the Budget?

    To be the obvious-as-abolishing-triple-lock move was to bring the Student Loan interest rate down to either base rate or CPI, from the current 6.1%.

    May only be a start, but needed.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
    Its interesting how wide the consensus is on this. It smacks of.....missed opportunity.
    Maybe amongst the tiny sliver of the population that spends its time thinking about and discussing politics. Meanwhile, in the real world...

    In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

    https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

    Basically, accounting for demographics and the relatively propensity to turn out and vote, pensioners are fully one-third of the electorate; add in those who'll likely have retired by the time the decade is out and you get to a full half - HALF - of all voters in a General Election. Win the grey vote and you probably win the country.

    The triple lock ain't going. Not now, and not within any of our lifetimes.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,288
    Foxy said:

    Stocky said:

    Excellent piece, I totally agree.

    The budget revealed that Rishi wants to keep enriching pensioners, but it’s austerity for everyone else.

    Since we went *in* to the pandemic with a terrible deal for workers and younger people, it’s a maddening prospect to think it must continue.

    Labour don’t seem to grasped this.

    I don`t think Sunak wants to keep enriching pensioners.

    He wants to claw in tax revenue but is struggling to find politically acceptable (and Johnson-populist-friendly) ways to do it.

    The corporation tax rise (just for big profit companies) and freezing allowances is the best way he can pluck feathers while minimising hissing.

    He may feel (and I agree) that there is a case for higher income tax rates for the over 65s with taxable income over a certain figure (well above the state pension level) so that, for example, the oldies incur, say, 25/45/50% tax rates instead of 20/40/45% for the younger cohorts. But this would be electoral suicide which he, and particularly Johnson, know very well.
    He needed to suspend the triple lock and have pensioners pay NI.
    No, I think @Northern_Al is right. It is the poorest pensioners that need to be protected, and the richer pensioners who need to contribute more. That will include me of course.
    Define rich please
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    Ha! I don't think Labourites have yet grasped the magnitude of the blow that Rishi has struck them. By cutting Corp Tax so low, Cameron and Osborne actually left a large reservoir of additional income for any government willing to raise it back to a moderate level - 'In case of emergency, break tax', if you will.

    Big corporation tax rises had been Labour's secret weapon in what passed for funding Corbyn's economic policy. In 2017 - the Corbyn miracle - Labour went into it promising to make corporations pay more tax while sparing individuals, whereas May promised to raid their homes. The result was obvious to anyone who knows what bits of finance the average voter actually cares about.

    But now Rishi has tapped the last easily-accessible vein of gold left by Cameron-Osborne. If he now avoids putting further major burdens on individuals for the rest of this parliament, then the dividing line for the next election is clear: if Labour wants to promise additional spending or deficit reduction, they have to go after the assets of individuals, whereas the Tories have already chosen to make business share the cost in order to avoid that electorally-toxic outcome.

    The Budget was rated as the fairest in decades, and 58% of Corbyn's own voters trust Rishi with the economy. He's just tipped the board decisively in the Tories' favour - a masterstroke of strategic positioning that the header sadly ignores.
    Except higher corporation tax equals lower investment, lower wages, fewer jobs, less IC, less NIC, lower taxes.

    Maybe the investment relief will cancel that out? Maybe. If made permanent.

    Otherwise this budget was smart politics but bad economics.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Roger said:

    An opposition leader without a cause can sound pretty hollow. It's not rocket science. Every advertiser faced with a product to sell uses the same techniques. Look for USPs. Get yourself noticed. Be original be creative. Look what your competitors are doing......No one needs an ideology just get an identity and give people a good feeling about what you're offering. Spend £88 a quarter on 'Campaign'. Some great ideas around and get stealing.....

    Difficult to use advertising to make people buy stuff that's crap. Ask Ratner
    Ratner had a very successful business* even though some of his products were crap. Indeed there is a thriving trade in crap across many sectors, especially in politics.

    The key though is to keep the truth veiled. Ratners error was to tell the truth.

    *indeed Mrs Foxys engagement ring came from Ratners in Tooting Broadway.
    Never buy retail.. go to an auction.
    Yeah, but we were young, in love and fairly skint!
    .. all the more reasonable to go to an auction 3 x better at least for the same money .. the dealers make a fortune on jewellery.. but you can beat them at an auction. I bought a lovely ring for my now wife.. ok I was in my late in my 50s and a widower and what I paid was about a quarter of what I would have paid in a shop..
    Genuine question from someone who's never been to an auction -- how do you know when to stop bidding and not end up paying above the retail price?
    You decide what it is worth to you, and stop then.

    Bearing in mind that there will be VAT and Auctioneer's premium (prob as much again) on the hammer price.

    You know what you lose by comparison with a new thing.

    eg I have sometimes bought bath fittings for refurbs at auction. I lose the guarantee and the right to take it back if faulty.

    I also know that for nearly everything in refurb getting 1/3 off the normal price is a piece of pie.

    So I would not go much above 20-22% of the new price at the hammer.
    Many years ago, when I was running a small retail business and needed some new fittings I went to an auction. A small supermarket had closed and their fittings were being auctioned off.
    The auctioneer announced before the sale that there were no 'reserves'.
    One particular item caught my eye; it would practically double my shelf space and give customers better access for self selection.
    When it came up I bid £2 and no-one else wanted it. The auctioneer announced that it was ridiculous to sell this for £2.
    At that there was almost a riot and the other potential bidders announced that if my bid wasn't accepted they'd all walk out.
    So the auctioneer gave way and I got my shelving unit.
    That's fun on Ebay.

    I got 99p for 4 sacks of used Parquet Flooring because only one person bid.

    But a friend got a car for half its value because they had a typo in the title.

    And I got my Gaggia Coffee machine because a chump living in Beverly had advertised "local delivery only", and very few lives round there. Then he was willing to send it in the post...
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    edited March 2021
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    The problem here is the media narrative would be Tories give you free stuff, Labour just take away your hard earned. It's a difficult conundrum to beat.
    It's difficult for Labour because they don't know what the Tory theme will be. But whatever it is, I think Labour should be positioning to the fiscal left of it. This sounds obvious but it's less so in these days of cross dressing economic populism.

    But first of all, mirror the Tories on "sound money". If the Tories are abandoning that principle, Labour should too. It would be an electoral own goal to embrace hairshirt voluntarily. And if the Tories are sticking to it, to sound money, Labour should too, and to the same extent. Goal is to remove that "Labour equals feckless deficits, Tories are the grown ups" talking point.

    Then within that framework Labour should be offering higher spending and higher tax to fund it, compared with the Tories. And make a virtue of this. Make sure the spending is on wildly popular things, and the tax is hitting the better off, personal and corporate, hard. I think the time is right for this. I know there's a danger, "Labour's tax bombshell bla bla" but I think it's a risk worth taking.

    TLDR: Fight right populism with left populism.
    The trouble with that theory is voters instinctively know it doesn't make sense and that the extra tax will have of necessity have to be levied on the basic rate payers too.

    Giving you an example 50 billion extra spending in the budget
    Top 10% of earners is about 5 million people
    To balance the extra spending you need to take an average of 10,000 pounds of extra tax off each one every year. Bear in mind that the income for the top decile doesn't cross 100,000 until about you being in the top 2 to 3% and to make that average of 10000 you will need to be taking eye watering sums off about 500,000 people

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax

    Labour budgets that propose such a paltry sum as a mere 50billion are as rare as rocking horse poo.Hell that wouldn't even cover the waspi women from the 2019 manifesto
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    MattW said:

    Question:

    Did Rishi actually change anything for students in the Budget?

    To be the obvious-as-abolishing-triple-lock move was to bring the Student Loan interest rate down to either base rate or CPI, from the current 6.1%.

    May only be a start, but needed.

    Wouldn’t that only benefit the high earners who may one day pay off the debt?

    Surely raising the threshold at which you start to pay it back would benefit all students.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,631
    I thought they had stockpiles off the stuff they couldn't get into arms as it is?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    An great response to a great header.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
    Classic Tory divide and rule tactic. Set private sector workers against public sector workers. We see the same with debate on pensions.
    He's right, though. Non-professional private sector have done far worse than Public Sector.

    And those are key target voters.
    Sure. But attracting the votes of struggling plumbers by mugging nurses is not the sort of politics I can get behind.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited March 2021

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    Ha! I don't think Labourites have yet grasped the magnitude of the blow that Rishi has struck them. By cutting Corp Tax so low, Cameron and Osborne actually left a large reservoir of additional income for any government willing to raise it back to a moderate level - 'In case of emergency, break tax', if you will.

    Big corporation tax rises had been Labour's secret weapon in what passed for funding Corbyn's economic policy. In 2017 - the Corbyn miracle - Labour went into it promising to make corporations pay more tax while sparing individuals, whereas May promised to raid their homes. The result was obvious to anyone who knows what bits of finance the average voter actually cares about.

    But now Rishi has tapped the last easily-accessible vein of gold left by Cameron-Osborne. If he now avoids putting further major burdens on individuals for the rest of this parliament, then the dividing line for the next election is clear: if Labour wants to promise additional spending or deficit reduction, they have to go after the assets of individuals, whereas the Tories have already chosen to make business share the cost in order to avoid that electorally-toxic outcome.

    The Budget was rated as the fairest in decades, and 58% of Corbyn's own voters trust Rishi with the economy. He's just tipped the board decisively in the Tories' favour - a masterstroke of strategic positioning that the header sadly ignores.
    Except higher corporation tax equals lower investment, lower wages, fewer jobs, less IC, less NIC, lower taxes.

    Maybe the investment relief will cancel that out? Maybe. If made permanent.

    Otherwise this budget was smart politics but bad economics.
    I'm talking about the politics - and the politics are simply brilliant. On the economic side, growth may be good enough that we don't have to go all the way up to 25%, or the investment relief can be extended, etc.

    In an ideal world, I'd love for Corp Tax to go down 5% instead of up. But in the one we live in, the one with the pandemic, I'm glad Rishi's gone with the option most conducive to Tory prospects and most detrimental to Labour's.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    America's obvious response is "why do you want something you have told your people is a pile of steaming shit?"
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,881
    MattW said:



    But a friend got a car for half its value because they had a typo in the title.

    In the eBay motors game that generally means it's nicked. The seller is trying to foil any attempts by the owners or the law to search for it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    edited March 2021

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    An great response to a great header.
    The premise is not correct though - quite a lot of business investment can be done within 2 years. You can build a fairly complex factory in that time, for instance.

    Much of it would be of the form of buying standard plant and machinery, though. For example, a relative who runs a building business is looking at buying some electric mini diggers -

    https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/mini-excavators/19c-1e

    This goes back to issue of productivity in the UK and the de-mechanisation that has been observed in some industries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073
    edited March 2021
    MattW said:

    Question:

    Did Rishi actually change anything for students in the Budget?

    To be the obvious-as-abolishing-triple-lock move was to bring the Student Loan interest rate down to either base rate or CPI, from the current 6.1%.

    May only be a start, but needed.

    A good free hit for Labour would be to have zero interest on Student Loans and make it retrospective.

    It wouldn't even cost much as few will be repaid in full anyway, so the money coming in will remain the same, just the nominal student debt reducing for individuals. It would remove the disincentive to earn more, and incentive to emigrate.

    Is it 2032 that the first of the debts will be written off? That will be a big loss to the exchequer, compounded annually, perhaps £8 billion per year in current terms.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    DavidL said:

    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.

    Inflation died in 2008. I am not quite sure what of but ever since governments and central banks have been struggling to meet the underside of their targets despite deficits, QE etc. Its curious but we may have to keep a weather eye on deflation every bit as much as inflation as the economy wallows with recovered capacity but limited spending power.
    My wife is lobbying for a sun holiday. We've never done that before. I am wanting to go out and watch live performances, have afternoon tea at a cafe, eat someone else's cooking and buy some new clothes (without the hassle of returning some if they don't fit).

    The stats for the economy as a whole show a large amount of extra saving. Given Britain's record on consumer spending I expect most of that money to be spent.

    I would be surprised if there was deficient demand.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    It'll certainly be a test of his priorities. If he bails out the EU without doing likewise to Australia then it's going to look very like favouring one ally over another. Which would be particularly difficult set against the wider strategic backdrop (Australia being punished through trade measures for being critical of the Chinese at the same time as the EU has been cosying up to them.)

    The easiest approach would probably be to say "we're in a worse state than you are, so the answer has to be 'no', for now." Though even that isn't trouble free. The response could reasonably be "but why, given you're not using the stuff?" I wonder how many more months the American authorities intend to drag their heels on giving approval to AZN in the first place?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    RobD said:

    gealbhan said:

    So how many people have we got who can’t actually have a jab, people with weak immune system, advanced MS perhaps, HIV? What’s the plan for freeing them from captivity?

    The same as with all other vaccines - that plan is for everyone else to have had it.
    I got it wrong then. I had the sense they were going to treat it like annual flu, not eradicate it. Like something a degree worse than annual flu this group can’t be vaccinated for?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited March 2021
    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:



    But a friend got a car for half its value because they had a typo in the title.

    In the eBay motors game that generally means it's nicked. The seller is trying to foil any attempts by the owners or the law to search for it.
    You mean that twin-turbot I was bidding on doesn't come with a fish dinner? Disappointing.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    It's crystal clear to me what Labour's line should be. Balance the books, yes, but this time the broadest shoulders really should bear the burden. Tax the arse off those who can afford to pay. Details tbc.

    The problem here is the media narrative would be Tories give you free stuff, Labour just take away your hard earned. It's a difficult conundrum to beat.
    It's difficult for Labour because they don't know what the Tory theme will be. But whatever it is, I think Labour should be positioning to the fiscal left of it. This sounds obvious but it's less so in these days of cross dressing economic populism.

    But first of all, mirror the Tories on "sound money". If the Tories are abandoning that principle, Labour should too. It would be an electoral own goal to embrace hairshirt voluntarily. And if the Tories are sticking to it, to sound money, Labour should too, and to the same extent. Goal is to remove that "Labour equals feckless deficits, Tories are the grown ups" talking point.

    Then within that framework Labour should be offering higher spending and higher tax to fund it, compared with the Tories. And make a virtue of this. Make sure the spending is on wildly popular things, and the tax is hitting the better off, personal and corporate, hard. I think the time is right for this. I know there's a danger, "Labour's tax bombshell bla bla" but I think it's a risk worth taking.

    TLDR: Fight right populism with left populism.
    There is no such thing as right populism and left populism. There is only I-don`t-know-my-arse-from-my-elbow-yet-I-exert-power populism.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073
    tlg86 said:

    MattW said:

    Question:

    Did Rishi actually change anything for students in the Budget?

    To be the obvious-as-abolishing-triple-lock move was to bring the Student Loan interest rate down to either base rate or CPI, from the current 6.1%.

    May only be a start, but needed.

    Wouldn’t that only benefit the high earners who may one day pay off the debt?

    Surely raising the threshold at which you start to pay it back would benefit all students.
    Perhaps so, but 30-40 something high earners are a useful swing demographic.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    May be of use to people here
    If you are 56+ it looks possible to book a jab
    https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1368123646217236480
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited March 2021

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    Business investment has been stagnant since 2016 ie Brexit. In turn, this has dented productivity and overall growth.

    Hopefully this measure will help turn that around.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    Dura_Ace said:

    MattW said:



    But a friend got a car for half its value because they had a typo in the title.

    In the eBay motors game that generally means it's nicked. The seller is trying to foil any attempts by the owners or the law to search for it.
    You mean that twin-turbot I was bidding on doesn't come with a fish dinner? Disappointing.
    Docs all in order.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    DavidL said:

    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.

    Inflation died in 2008. I am not quite sure what of but ever since governments and central banks have been struggling to meet the underside of their targets despite deficits, QE etc. Its curious but we may have to keep a weather eye on deflation every bit as much as inflation as the economy wallows with recovered capacity but limited spending power.
    My wife is lobbying for a sun holiday. We've never done that before. I am wanting to go out and watch live performances, have afternoon tea at a cafe, eat someone else's cooking and buy some new clothes (without the hassle of returning some if they don't fit).

    The stats for the economy as a whole show a large amount of extra saving. Given Britain's record on consumer spending I expect most of that money to be spent.

    I would be surprised if there was deficient demand.
    It'll certainly be very interesting to see what happens with savings going forward - bearing in mind how precarious employment is becoming for most people in the private sector.

    There's an apparently limitless supply of cheap credit at the moment for sovereign states; for individual citizens, you can still only call upon loans and credit cards for so long if you find yourself struggling. Accumulating a nest egg as insurance might, therefore, be a more popular activity than it was before the pandemic - especially since people may now have been pushed into developing a savings habit by having the better part of a year in which there wasn't much to spend the money on apart from household basics, streaming subscriptions and Amazon crap.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    DavidL said:

    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.

    Inflation died in 2008. I am not quite sure what of but ever since governments and central banks have been struggling to meet the underside of their targets despite deficits, QE etc. Its curious but we may have to keep a weather eye on deflation every bit as much as inflation as the economy wallows with recovered capacity but limited spending power.
    My wife is lobbying for a sun holiday. We've never done that before. I am wanting to go out and watch live performances, have afternoon tea at a cafe, eat someone else's cooking and buy some new clothes (without the hassle of returning some if they don't fit).

    The stats for the economy as a whole show a large amount of extra saving. Given Britain's record on consumer spending I expect most of that money to be spent.

    I would be surprised if there was deficient demand.
    To get any summer holidays (uk holiday hone rentals) this year we have had to call in favours from friends and take whatever availability they have left
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,870
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that this budget should have been used to end the triple lock once and for all. It was never a good policy but it is now deeply immoral as well as unaffordable. This is really David's point: there was no clear narrative or overriding objective. If your position is that the government has no more money (which is fair enough) spending more of it on pensioners whilst cutting the real wages of those in work as well as taxing them more is just wrong.

    I said many months ago that the triple lock had to end. The massive efforts made to beat the Covid virus have very largely been to protect those in the age group benefitting from the triple lock. It is only fair that they make a significant contribution to getting us out of the financial hole that has caused. And Rishi could have got away with now - because it is equitable.

    Once the economy starts coming back to life, it make it more difficult to make that case, politically. Meanwhile the Himalayan range of debt still sits there. Rishi needed to be braver.
    The triple lock is almost irrelevant. As I said earlier, it means single pensioners are four pounds a week better off than they would have been under the old arrangements. £4.
    That irrelevance may be tested if we are about to have some inflation over 3%. If you are going to amend the triple lock, the time to do it is now, for the very point you make.
    I am struggling to make up my mind what I will spend my £2.50 ( after tax ) on.
    Try turnips..they are full of goodness.
    I have them already, trying to think of something new. Impossible to find organic turnips mind you.
    Grow your own. Get a plot at your local organic garden.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    The trouble with NI is it means we end up taxing earned income more than unearned income. Dividend income is taxed at 7.5% (after your £2000 tax free) rental income at 20% but work is taxed at 32%. More income tax and less NI would be a good thing. Pensioners in work should be paying NI.

    Someone mentioned that after housing costs pensioners were actually better off than younger folk. The most obvious answer would be to do something about housing costs. Increase income tax gradually to say 24% and reduce NI to 10% - but slowly enough so pensioners don't go beserk. 25% corporation tax seems perfectly reasonable and might actually encourage investment instead of sitting on cash.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    edited March 2021
    eek said:

    May be of use to people here
    If you are 56+ it looks possible to book a jab
    https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1368123646217236480

    Maybe it's simply that the NHS is updating the website every day or two, unblocking the NHS numbers for the next year group, and not bothering to advertise the fact? Relying on pro-active citizens to go to the mass vax centres and letting the GPs mop up those who aren't internet savvy or are willing to wait for a letter - a means to regulate demand?

    If they keep applying the same principle all the way down the age scale then it will certainly be worth 48-49 year olds starting to check regularly from about the middle of the month.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,577
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Question:

    Did Rishi actually change anything for students in the Budget?

    To be the obvious-as-abolishing-triple-lock move was to bring the Student Loan interest rate down to either base rate or CPI, from the current 6.1%.

    May only be a start, but needed.

    A good free hit for Labour would be to have zero interest on Student Loans and make it retrospective.

    It wouldn't even cost much as few will be repaid in full anyway, so the money coming in will remain the same, just the nominal student debt reducing for individuals. It would remove the disincentive to earn more, and incentive to emigrate.

    Is it 2032 that the first of the debts will be written off? That will be a big loss to the exchequer, compounded annually, perhaps £8 billion per year in current terms.
    It wouldn't be exactly free, as it would mean bringing forward the large national balance sheet adjustments which are inevitable (but as yet unacknowledged) at some point.
    And with the current state of the public balance sheet, there would be some dangers in that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,073

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    Yes, looks like a bung to the car industry to me.

    Perhaps the flaw is having to make a profit to get the tax benefit, which a lot of companies will not, even normally profitable ones.
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 403

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    An great response to a great header.
    The premise is not correct though - quite a lot of business investment can be done within 2 years. You can build a fairly complex factory in that time, for instance.

    Much of it would be of the form of buying standard plant and machinery, though. For example, a relative who runs a building business is looking at buying some electric mini diggers -

    https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/mini-excavators/19c-1e

    This goes back to issue of productivity in the UK and the de-mechanisation that has been observed in some industries.
    Well, the notion that the 130% is designed to give Lord Bamford’s JCB a boost is another good theory.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,934
    kinabalu said:

    MattW said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    RobD said:

    "But healthcare staff reacted with anger at the plan. The Royal College of Nursing called the rise "pitiful" and started preparing for strike action, saying that its members should get 12.5% instead."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56301981

    A 12.5% pay rise? What are the equivalent numbers in the private sector this year?
    0% if you are lucky
    Public sector was a great place to be in the pandemic. Furlough? Job loss? Pay cut? Loss of pension? Not a worry.

    NHS deserve a recognition of their exposure to Covid and the real risk of loss of life faced by those in the front line of the fight. Hard to know where you draw that line, so reward them all with a £1,000 tax-free "thank you from a grateful nation". Give them free ten days more holiday they can take over the next three? five? years.

    But if you REALLY want to piss off those who have hurt worst under Covid, then favour the public sector over the private. Watch those remaining private sector voters drain away, Labour.
    That is a false dichotomy because they are not homogeneous blocks. Many private sector workers are still working. Many are paid more than in the public sector. Some private sector workers (including yours truly) have lost their jobs but by no means all.
    Classic Tory divide and rule tactic. Set private sector workers against public sector workers. We see the same with debate on pensions.
    He's right, though. Non-professional private sector have done far worse than Public Sector.

    And those are key target voters.
    Sure. But attracting the votes of struggling plumbers by mugging nurses is not the sort of politics I can get behind.
    Not to mention private sector supermarket workers and delivery drivers are still working; others may be furloughed. The idea that private sector workers are one big homogeneous mass with a grudge against teachers is false.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    eek said:

    May be of use to people here
    If you are 56+ it looks possible to book a jab
    https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1368123646217236480

    Maybe it's simply that the NHS is updating the website every day or two, unblocking the NHS numbers for the next year group, and not bothering to advertise the fact? Relying on pro-active citizens to go to the mass vax centres and letting the GPs mop up those who aren't internet savvy or are willing to wait for a letter - a means to regulate demand?

    If they keep applying the same principle all the way down the age scale then it will certainly be worth 48-49 year olds starting to check regularly from about the middle of the month.
    Two more points:

    1. Sorry if everyone's already aware of this, but if you don't know your NHS number then you can find it virtually instantaneously through a search facility on their website - very helpful
    2. I've also been to the vaccination booking page, and it has indeed been updated to state that it's available to people aged 56 and over. It only went down to 60 earlier in the week, IIRC - so progress on first jabs has slowed but they're evidently still not doing at all badly
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    eek said:

    May be of use to people here
    If you are 56+ it looks possible to book a jab
    https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1368123646217236480

    Maybe it's simply that the NHS is updating the website every day or two, unblocking the NHS numbers for the next year group, and not bothering to advertise the fact? Relying on pro-active citizens to go to the mass vax centres and letting the GPs mop up those who aren't internet savvy or are willing to wait for a letter - a means to regulate demand?

    If they keep applying the same principle all the way down the age scale then it will certainly be worth 48-49 year olds starting to check regularly from about the middle of the month.
    Two more points:

    1. Sorry if everyone's already aware of this, but if you don't know your NHS number then you can find it virtually instantaneously through a search facility on their website - very helpful
    2. I've also been to the vaccination booking page, and it has indeed been updated to state that it's available to people aged 56 and over. It only went down to 60 earlier in the week, IIRC - so progress on first jabs has slowed but they're evidently still not doing at all badly
    A rough rule of thumb - 800K people in a year cohort. So 4 years on the population is something like 3.2 million first vaccinations...

    So, at the moment, we are doing about 3 years of population per week....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    My only worry is inflation. There could be a tsunami of demand and temporarily limited supply.

    But while that will cause problems for some people it will do a lot to repair the public finances.

    Inflation died in 2008. I am not quite sure what of but ever since governments and central banks have been struggling to meet the underside of their targets despite deficits, QE etc. Its curious but we may have to keep a weather eye on deflation every bit as much as inflation as the economy wallows with recovered capacity but limited spending power.
    My wife is lobbying for a sun holiday. We've never done that before. I am wanting to go out and watch live performances, have afternoon tea at a cafe, eat someone else's cooking and buy some new clothes (without the hassle of returning some if they don't fit).

    The stats for the economy as a whole show a large amount of extra saving. Given Britain's record on consumer spending I expect most of that money to be spent.

    I would be surprised if there was deficient demand.
    Well I have a tax bill that I can't pay, having taken advantage of Rishi's generosity last July and, like a large number of self employed people, have suffered a significant drop in income this last year. We will have a few days in October when we take my son to University but there will be no summer holiday, no major expenditure of any kind until we get ourselves out of our Covid shaped hole.

    I accept that those whose income was protected may well have the capacity to increase consumption but an awful lot of people don't.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997

    eek said:

    May be of use to people here
    If you are 56+ it looks possible to book a jab
    https://twitter.com/jimalkhalili/status/1368123646217236480

    Maybe it's simply that the NHS is updating the website every day or two, unblocking the NHS numbers for the next year group, and not bothering to advertise the fact? Relying on pro-active citizens to go to the mass vax centres and letting the GPs mop up those who aren't internet savvy or are willing to wait for a letter - a means to regulate demand?

    If they keep applying the same principle all the way down the age scale then it will certainly be worth 48-49 year olds starting to check regularly from about the middle of the month.
    Two more points:

    1. Sorry if everyone's already aware of this, but if you don't know your NHS number then you can find it virtually instantaneously through a search facility on their website - very helpful
    2. I've also been to the vaccination booking page, and it has indeed been updated to state that it's available to people aged 56 and over. It only went down to 60 earlier in the week, IIRC - so progress on first jabs has slowed but they're evidently still not doing at all badly
    You don't need your NHS number you can book on using bio details.
  • Foxy said:

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    Yes, looks like a bung to the car industry to me.

    Perhaps the flaw is having to make a profit to get the tax benefit, which a lot of companies will not, even normally profitable ones.
    Someone put up a good explanation of this a few days ago. The key issue is that Rishi signalled rises in Corporation Tax to 24% in 2 years. That being the case, why would any business make investments in plant and machinery etc. that are allowable against CT now when you get more cash benefit if you wait 2 years? The 130% allowance for the next 2 years stops this cliff edge because it makes it almost exactly the same if you invest now or wait 2 years. It also gets good headlines because most people don't do the sums and thus think he's trying to help improve investment and efficiency.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    The trouble with NI is it means we end up taxing earned income more than unearned income. Dividend income is taxed at 7.5% (after your £2000 tax free) rental income at 20% but work is taxed at 32%. More income tax and less NI would be a good thing. Pensioners in work should be paying NI.

    Someone mentioned that after housing costs pensioners were actually better off than younger folk. The most obvious answer would be to do something about housing costs. Increase income tax gradually to say 24% and reduce NI to 10% - but slowly enough so pensioners don't go beserk. 25% corporation tax seems perfectly reasonable and might actually encourage investment instead of sitting on cash.

    Agree with all of that. I think overall tax levels are way too high but within the bounds of the current tax take I think we should rebalance significantly so that one form of acquiring money does not pay significantly less tax overall than any other form. Even Libertarians and low tax advocates must be able to see there should be a basic principle of fairness in the system and that simply doesn't exist at present. Merging or equalising NI and IC, removing pensioner exemptions until such merging is complete and rationalising all the various tax forms on income at a set of equal levels seems obvious to me if you really want to make the tax system fairer and more transparent.

    Once that is done it is then possible to have a grown up conversation about what level of tax take we think is appropriate overall.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,870
    There would never have been a better time to abolish the triple lock.

    I would like to see the Government look at a much more radical review of tax and benefits. Set a minimum income level, sufficient to live on without needing benefits or charity. £16,200 per year would equate to a 35 hour week at the living wage. Set that as the personal allowance. Receive a rebate if your income is less. Pay tax if your income is more. Combine tax and NI for a basic rate of 32%. Same rate for self-employed. Income based on earned and unearned income (dividends and Capital Gains) at the same rate. Higher tax rates of 52% and 57%, so no upper limit on NI contributions. Don’t know what the net cost would be. A job for a think tank, maybe?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    An interesting header, thank you. The 130% capital allowance in the budget still puzzles me. Given that major NEW investments are unlikely within the 2 year window of the allowance, what is it’s purpose? To encourage firms to make “shovel ready” investments that have been held back because of COVID? Or, and this is my favourite, it’s a form of state aid that is focussed on some very specific investment decisions by businesses with whom the Government has been in discussion. Said state aid being to secure the investment and thus avoid businesses moving manufacturing away from the U.K. 130% in this scenario is what those businesses demanded to underwrite Brexit Britain.

    An great response to a great header.
    The premise is not correct though - quite a lot of business investment can be done within 2 years. You can build a fairly complex factory in that time, for instance.

    Much of it would be of the form of buying standard plant and machinery, though. For example, a relative who runs a building business is looking at buying some electric mini diggers -

    https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/mini-excavators/19c-1e

    This goes back to issue of productivity in the UK and the de-mechanisation that has been observed in some industries.
    Well, the notion that the 130% is designed to give Lord Bamford’s JCB a boost is another good theory.
    Yes. And crane makers. Van makers.

    The idea that the only kind of "industry" (and investment) is steel mills is one that really needs to go away.

    A chap I know runs a custom machine shop - essentially a hall of CNC machines, carving odd shapes out of solid blocks of metal. Investment for him would either be

    - more/replacement machines (faster, more accurate)
    - software. A big issue in that business is creating optimal tool paths. Not just carving the object out - you have to consider stability, heating, access etc etc. Some of it is automated and the very best software for autogenerating the program is quite expensive.

    All of that can be bought off the shelf - lead time on a big CNC is months at most.
This discussion has been closed.